Possible Action Against The Times

Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

aquila wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

Snipped from Cristobell's reply

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.


Is this the substance of your next blog Cristobell?

Cristobell wrote:

aquila wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],



Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.

Snipped from Cristobell's reply

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Bearing all of the above in mind, good luck with their case against the mighty Sunday Times, lol.


Is this the substance of your next blog Cristobell?

Maybe Aquila, although I am still trying to understand why on earth they would issue proceedings against the Times, at this stage of the game?  They must be absolutely swamped with troubles piling up at their door, yet they issue a Summons?

Cristobell wrote:Tony said:

When the McCanns at the same time started promoting the Smithman sighting on their website, being one of their featured suspects [which Cristobell btw continues to deny],

Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

REPLY: To recap and clarify, I think we are agreed on all the following:

1. That the efits were drawn up in 2008 (the  evidence suggest the spring of 2008)

2. That the edits first saw the light of day in the lead-up to the CrimeWatch McCann Show on 14 October 2013, some newspapers and the BBC trailing the images a day or two beforehand. 

3. That there was thus a delay of five-and-a-half years between the efits being created and them being published.

Now, basing the subsequent sequence of events on the Sunday Times article of 27/10/13:

We have:

4. Henri Exton delivering these two efits to the McCanns and the Directors of Madeleine's Fund (who paid Halligen/Oakley International) probably late spring or summer 2008

5. The McCanns deciding not to publish them

6. The McCanns passing them to Leicestershire Police 'before October 2009' 

7.  The McCanns passing them to the Portuguese Police 'before October 2009'

8. The McCanns passing them to DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange in August 2011 (probably at their initial meeting together), and

9. DCI Andy Redwood sitting on them for a full 2 years and 2 months before releasing them on the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Show and to the British media in a veritable blaze of glory.

Now, if the above is correct, the McCanns could plausibly argue, and with some justification, that they has delivered these efits to THREE police forces (in 2009 and 2011) and that THOSE POLICE FORCES did not advise their publication until 14 October 2013. That would amount to a truly staggering situation where the efits of the true main suspect had indeed been suppressed for an astonishing five-and-a-half years. But as you know, I say these e-fits are not images of a real suspect at all; indeed I suggest they were enver generated from the Smiths' recollections.

Indeed, I am henceforth going to call these 2 efits (of obviously different men IMO) the 'EXTON-PRODUCED EFITS', as to call them the 'Smithman efits' makes three assumptions that I suggest are unjustified:

A. that the Smiths saw anyone at all
B. that the efits are of one man (I am sure they are of two different men), and
C. that the Smiths drew up either of those efits - they could not have done: dark, weak street lighting, didn't see his face etc. etc.

Now we come to the factual matters regarding the McCanns' deployment of Smithman since 2009, which you are unable to deny:

10. The possibility that the Smiths might have seen the abductor formed an integral part of the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary which included a reconstruction of events based entirely on the McCanns' script

11. From then on, and for over 5 years, or nearly 2,000 days, the McCanns carried the following amongst their list of six key suspects on the Find Madeleine website:
a) a detailed written description of the Smith sighting, and
b) accompanying this, that description being read out in full by someone with a distinct Irish accent

12. Dr Kate McCann's book, written in 2011, 'madeleine' mentioned 'Smithman' on SIX pages

13. Dr Kate McCann's book also carried THREE of those pages to comparing the 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman.

THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US (assuming the above four facts are agreed) is that:

I say that the McCanns have used and promoted the Smithman sighting for 5 years...

While you, on the above facts, claim that the McCanns did NOT in any way promote the Smithman sightings (albeit that the McCanns didn't use the two efits).

Indeed, you go still further and have now made the bizarre claim, flying in the face of the facts, that the McCanns 'suppressed' all mention of Smithman.

Cristobell wrote:

Maybe Aquila, although I am still trying to understand why on earth they would issue proceedings against the Times, at this stage of the game? 

REPLY: See my post, 6th down on page 2 of this thread

They must be absolutely swamped with troubles piling up at their door, yet they issue a Summons?

REPLY: There could be a lorra lorra money in it [Reminder once again: Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow] 

Claire25 wrote:Looking at it I doubt it would be for this article would it? 
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9619-the-times-article-19-may-2014-mentions-her-murder?highlight=The+times

Surely The Times could defend that easily by just saying that SY were investigating the possibility that MM didn't leave 5a alive?

Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they 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?

dantezebu wrote:They promoted the Smith's sighting (for their own ends).

I say Yes, Cristobell says No.

But did not promote the e-fits (for their own reasons).

We have both always agreed on that.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they 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?

Taking the two comments I've bolded together, Woofer, suppose just for a moment that I am right - that these efits were not produced by the Smiths.

I think the McCanns may know that.

No doubt Leicestershire Police and the PJ between them (assuming they really were shown these efits) did not find them credible enough to tell the public about in 2009 (or subsequently).

Then why, if the McCanns met Redwood in August 2011, and showed him the efits then (as the Sunday Times admits), and told him that the Smiths drew them up, why, why, why did he not show these efits to the British public in August 2011, instead of waiting until October 2013? It is on the face of it a gross dereliction of duty.

It is my sincere belief that DCI Redwood knows that these efits were not drawn up by the Smiths. However, I believe that he wanted to use them - dishonestly - but could not do so until he had 'got rid of' Tannerman.

In which case Redwood has made a bold, maybe 'clever' move (at least in his own eyes), but one that is dishonest - and may one day be found out.

Cristobell wrote:Their failure to promote Smithman was one of the reasons I did not believe the abduction story, frankly, one of the reasons I am astounded that you are arguing they promoted the Smith family sighting.

Just to clarify.  DCI Redwood was telling the truth when he said the 'new' efits were a revelation moment.  Although the McCanns had those efits in their possession in 2009 (on that we are agreed), they did not use them in the Loach mockumentary, they were never promoted on the OFM website and they did not appear in Kate's book.  Even seasoned old campaigners like you and I had never seen them before. 

Justformaddie wrote:Hmmm.... David Cameron is taking a holiday...... IN PORTUGAL!!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Woofer wrote:I can see where Tony and Cristobell are coming from and they are disagreeing on the fundamental point that the McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting.

IMO they 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?

Taking the two comments I've bolded together, Woofer, suppose just for a moment that I am right - that these efits were not produced by the Smiths.

I think the McCanns may know that.

No doubt Leicestershire Police and the PJ between them (assuming they really were shown these efits) did not find them credible enough to tell the public about in 2009 (or subsequently).

Then why, if the McCanns met Redwood in August 2011, and showed him the efits then (as the Sunday Times admits), and told him that the Smiths drew them up, why, why, why did he not show these efits to the British public in August 2011, instead of waiting until October 2013? It is on the face of it a gross dereliction of duty.

It is my sincere belief that DCI Redwood knows that these efits were not drawn up by the Smiths. However, I believe that he wanted to use them - dishonestly - but could not do so until he had 'got rid of' Tannerman.

In which case Redwood has made a bold, maybe 'clever' move (at least in his own eyes), but one that is dishonest - and may one day be found out.

noddy100 wrote:Why would the public need to be prepared?

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?

Justformaddie wrote:

noddy100 wrote:Why would the public need to be prepared?

I think because from the third of May 07 the whole world has been told maddie was abducted and there's no evidence she's come to serious harm (except the dogs findings) and she's a findable little girl, plus money for the fund IMO though.

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:

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:

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'?

ShuBob wrote:

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

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

ShuBob wrote:

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

Tony Bennett wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

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

I refer to my previous post.

He was being saved up for later.

As events have proved.