Re: SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'

by j.rob 24.02.15 19:32

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

It cannot make any sense if Team McCann want Smithman to be Gerry McCann. That is just ludicrous, as Gerry might say.

So these two people are from another camp. The Murat camp maybe?

They are people who believe Gerry is implicated in the disappearance of his daughter.And when they saw the family fleeing from Portugal and Gerry landing in the UK, they decided to take action. Because they didn't see why he should 'get away with it', perhaps? Even if the sightings were fabricated. Team McCann fabricated their own 'sighting' - Tanner-man. Or at least I think they did. It may not be that straightforward. Perhaps TM's Tanner-man was their way of implicating someone else who was, or should have been, in on the McScam.

Each 'camp' comes up with a sighting or sightings that suit their own agendas and fire warning shots. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

And I do think it is relevant that the Smiths co-own an apartment in Luz. They will have local networks. They will have heard things. People will have had suspicions. The Smiths may know Robert Murat or at least know people who know Robert Murat.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.02.15 21:29

j.rob wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
COMMENT:

Two people who suddenly contact the police in the days following the McCanns' return home, and both say: 'It was Gerry McCann I saw - it was the way he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder'.

Is this just another remarkable co-incidence?

OK, so... assuming no coincidence, to what end? Team McCann want people to think that Smithman = Gerry McCann? For what reason?

It cannot make any sense if Team McCann want Smithman to be Gerry McCann. That is just ludicrous, as Gerry might say.

So these two people are from another camp. The Murat camp maybe?

They are people who believe Gerry is implicated in the disappearance of his daughter.And when they saw the family fleeing from Portugal and Gerry landing in the UK, they decided to take action. Because they didn't see why he should 'get away with it', perhaps? Even if the sightings were fabricated. Team McCann fabricated their own 'sighting' - Tanner-man. Or at least I think they did. It may not be that straightforward. Perhaps TM's Tanner-man was their way of implicating someone else who was, or should have been, in on the McScam.

Each 'camp' comes up with a sighting or sightings that suit their own agendas and fire warning shots. That's how it looks to me, anyway.

And I do think it is relevant that the Smiths co-own an apartment in Luz. They will have local networks. They will have heard things. People will have had suspicions. The Smiths may know Robert Murat or at least know people who know Robert Murat.

Very good points @ j.rob

A few points to note:

McCluskey is the name of a well-known Irish clan from County Derry: was Richard McCluskey, like Martin Smith, an Irishman? -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Reference to previous threads on this subject on CMOMM here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sunderland Echo report on the McCluskey sighting here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And another Sunderland Echo report about a Richard McCluskey here - the same family? -

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 25.02.15 22:39

A forum member e-mailed me today with this point:

I've just read the McCluskey [sp.] statement. As you point out - what are the chances that two people would say "the way he carried the child off the plane made me think it was Gerry". I might believe that IF both these people saw the same incident initially. But these are two separate alleged incidents that the "carrying down the plane steps" is reminding them of".
As HideHo noted many moons ago, the co-incidence of the two exactly similar statements seems...well...beyond coi-incidence.
This is what Richard McCluskey said in his initial statement (9 May) about the couple he had seen:
"Upon entering the apartment we put on Sky News and became aware of a news report about a young couple acting suspiciously in relation to the disappearance of the British child. I therefore went to the complex and informed them of what I had seen and gave him the registration on the paper".

The complex was the 'Club Alvorferias' in Alvor, Portugal, which is just 10 miles or less east of Praia da Luz.
One important point of interest is that in his initial statement, McCluskey referred to the male he had seen as 'a dark skinned male'. Thayt's very difficult to reconcile with his later claim that the man he saw might have been Gerry McCann".

In their statements, Richard & Susan McCluskey say that when they saw the couple, they [the McCluskeys] were 'walking back fom the town to our hotel complex..."
In his second statement (13 September), Mr McCluskey first of all explains why he thought that the woman he'd seen back on 5th May 2007 was Dr Kate McCann:
"Having viewed recent media coverage regarding the investigation, Mr McClusky now states that the female he saw and described is Mrs. McCann (the missing child's mother). He states he is "almost certain" that they are the same person and has agonised for days over what to do and whether to contact the police. He is acutely aware of the possible implications of his account. When asked why there had been such a time lapse in him making this "identification" he explained it as follows:

Mr. McCluskey states the thought had never crossed his mind that a child's parents could be implicated in such a matter. Media coverage over the past week or so has casued him to take a renewed interest in the case. The only thing which prevents Mr. McCluskey from stating he is 100% certain in his "identification" is the fact that he would, in his words, " hate to incriminate an innocent person".

This is interesting not least because it is yet another person who is strangely reluctant to give police information as soon as it occurs to them.
We have, for example:
1. Martin Smith - an unaccountable delay of 13 days in reporting the claimed 'Smithman' sighting
2. Martin Smith again - a further unaccountable delay of 11 days [9 to 20 September] before he talks to the police about his belief that it was Gerry McCann that he'd seen 4 months earlier
3. The British banker who was said to have 'agonised' for 2 years before telling police that an Aussie-speaking Victoria Beckham-lookalike had asked him on Barcelona dockside, after a night's drinking spree, for her 'new daughter'
4. 'Crecheman', who - if Redwood is to be believed - waited 6 years before waking up one morning and suddenly thinking: 'Gosh, perhaps I'm that bloke that Jane Tanner saw 6 years ago".

IMO none of the above delays has any credibility, and IMO neither does McCluskey's claim to have identified, 4 months later, the 'dark-skinned' bloke he'd seen on 5th May as Gerry McCann. Furthermore, he delayed contacting the police for 4 days in September, and then says he's 100% certain - from the way Gerry McCann was carrying Sean on his left shoulder - that he was the man he'd seen...but only wants to admit to being 'almost certain' is because he 'doesn't want to incriminate Gerry McCann'.
In any event McCluskey has made a fool of himself because the bloke he said he was 100% certain was Gerry McCann was...well, a Ukrainian bloke.

by Liz Eagles 26.02.15 9:57

I agree with you Tony.

by pennylane 26.02.15 10:17

Witnesses to a crime often procrastinate going to the police for a number of reasons, and some don't come forward at all because they don't want to get involved. Others say nothing for years. That's a fact!

by **Tony Bennett** 26.02.15 11:01

pennylane wrote:Witnesses to a crime often procrastinate going to the police for a number of reasons, and some don't come forward at all because they don't want to get involved. Others say nothing for years. That's a fact!

Agreed.

However, in the specific case of Martin Smith and his family, we have to weigh up the massive potential significance of his evidence (if true) against the background of wall-to-wall international media coverage of a claimed abduction, and his 13-day delay in doing anything about it.

On top of that, we must put under scrutiny the fact that he only reacted after someone he knew (Robert Murat) was made a suspect, and that about the only thing he was clear about in his police interview was that the stranger he saw, face obscured, for a second or two in the dark, was definitely not Robert Murat.

And @ pennylane, did Martin Smith say to the police that he didn't come forward because he 'didn't want to get involved'?

Absolutely not! Quite the contrary!

He only awoke out of his slothfulness in this regard when his son Peter (allegedly) 'phoned him up on Wednesday 16 May and asked his father: "Am I dreaming or something, or did we see a bloke carrying a child on the evening of 3rd May?"

Furthermore, he and members of his family later contradicted that unlikely version of events by giving oher reasons why they 'phoned at that moment.

But let's not stray too far from the current point under discussion - namely how Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey both 'phoned the police in mid-September to say: "Goodness, now that I've seen Gerry McCann on the telly carrying his son on his left shoulder down the aircraft steps, I'm sure that was the bloke I saw back in May".

Not only IMO does each story wholly lack credibility, but two of them saying the same thing at the very same time sounds more than a tad suspicious

by pennylane 26.02.15 12:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:Witnesses to a crime often procrastinate going to the police for a number of reasons, and some don't come forward at all because they don't want to get involved. Others say nothing for years. That's a fact!
Agreed.

However, in the specific case of Martin Smith and his family, we have to weigh up the massive potential significance of his evidence (if true) against the background of wall-to-wall international media coverage of a claimed abduction, and his 13-day delay in doing anything about it.

On top of that, we must put under scrutiny the fact that he only reacted after someone he knew (Robert Murat) was made a suspect, and that about the only thing he was clear about in his police interview was that the stranger he saw, face obscured, for a second or two in the dark, was definitely not Robert Murat.

And @ pennylane, did Martin Smith say to the police that he didn't come forward because he 'didn't want to get involved'?

Absolutely not! Quite the contrary!

He only awoke out of his slothfulness in this regard when his son Peter (allegedly) 'phoned him up on Wednesday 16 May and asked his father: "Am I dreaming or something, or did we see a bloke carrying a child on the evening of 3rd May?"

Furthermore, he and members of his family later contradicted that unlikely version of events by giving oher reasons why they 'phoned at that moment.

But let's not stray too far from the current point under discussion - namely how Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey both 'phoned the police in mid-September to say: "Goodness, now that I've seen Gerry McCann on the telly carrying his son on his left shoulder down the aircraft steps, I'm sure that was the bloke I saw back in May".

Not only IMO does each story wholly lack credibility, but two of them saying the same thing at the very same time sounds more than a tad suspicious

Hi Tony,

I agree there is room for suspicion, but I think it's more likely due to the Smith's not wanting to get involved and then seeing Robert being fitted up, and knew they had to do the right thing.

The Smiths were going home the next day (I believe) and might have not realised until they got home. As I said, perhaps they saw an innocent man being fitted up and felt compelled to speak up. This to me is a plausible reason for a delay...... and that is IF the information is not true that the Smiths did indeed report it within 2 days and the PJ weren't interested because the timing was wrong (due to max efforts by the McCanns and friends to alter the timeline).

How many people in a missing child case would tell the police, 'We didn't come forward because we didn't want to get involved.' More likely you would try and make a more palatable excuse. Not saying this is the case, but just saying...

by pennylane 26.02.15 12:41

I remain convinced the Smiths are good people, and for many reasons I believe they saw Gerry McCann on that ill fated night, and have voted accordingly in the poll.

by Doug D 26.02.15 13:21

I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the Smiths are (pennylane) ‘good people’ or not, although obviously have my own opinion regarding the veracity of the sighting and subsequent reporting.

I read on the CF forum a posting from Tigger where she said that Hall had confirmed to her that Smith was the sender of the e-mail asking for a correction regarding his knowledge of Murat.

If this is indeed correct, presumably Hall has subsequently entered into some correspondence with Smith and hopefully we will gain some insight/clarification/explanation of the Smith sighting in Halls next set of video releases where he:

‘examines in a level of detail never covered before in any TV documentary, the claims that Madeleine was abducted. Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following the disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see.’

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by pennylane 26.02.15 14:19

My theory of this case is simple. Sedation/neglect of 3 toddlers leading to the death of one, and a last minute panic and pandemonium in hiding the body to prevent arrest and loss of everything, followed by a truly pathetic attempt at back fitting an abduction story, that to this day falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. I believe Gerry ran into the Smiths on that ill fated night, and Jane Tanner was roped in to give him a fighting chance after they feared he would be identified. (jmho)

I applaud all the work and attention to detail in R D Hall's videos, and it will be interesting to see if he disparages the Smiths in his new video. I do hope not I must confess. roses

by **Tony Bennett** 26.02.15 14:33

pennylane wrote:My theory of this case is simple. Sedation/neglect of 3 toddlers leading to the death of one, and a last-minute panic and pandemonium in hiding the body to prevent arrest and loss of everything, followed by a truly pathetic attempt at backfitting an abduction story, that to this day falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. I believe Gerry ran into the Smiths on that ill fated night, and Jane Tanner was roped in to give him a fighting chance after they feared he would be identified. (jmho)

I applaud all the work and attention to detail in R D Hall's videos, and it will be interesting to see if he disparages the Smiths in his new video. I do hope not I must confess.

@ pennylane

A reply below to the above and to your previous posts re Smithman today:

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

Hi Tony,

It is always good to see you on the forum, pennylane,I know you’re one of those who wholeheartedly seeks the truth about Madeleine – and as you know I’ve valued your support in the past. I am sorry we cannot agree re ‘Smithman’, I don’t expect to change your mind, but please have a look anyway at my responses below.

I agree there is room for suspicion,

Thank you, I think the deeper one goes into all aspects of the Smith sightings, the greater one’s suspicions become

but I think it's more likely due to the Smith's not wanting to get involved and then seeing Robert being fitted up, and knew they had to do the right thing.

But that’s simply not consistent with anything the Smiths have said and done, is it? They didn’t make any attempt to say, when interviewed on 26 May in Portimao, that they thought that the man might be Gerry. They all admitted it was dark, no street lighting, his face was obscured, they only saw him for a few seconds at most, and would never be able to recognise him again. What about the rest of May, the whole of June, the whole of July, the whole of August, and most of September. They probably saw the McCanns every other day on the telly or in the papers. Yet all of a sudden, in mid-September, both Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey ring up the police and suddenly say: “I’m pretty sure it was Gerry that I saw”.

I'm certain you yourself would do the right thing immediately if not sooner, had you spotted the father scurrying down a side street,

Nothing whatsoever from all that has been said by and about the Smiths provides any evidence whatsoever IMO that any of the group thought they had ‘spotted the father’

but many people would not, and the Smiths were going home the next day (I believe)

Only some of them

and might have not realised until they got home. As I said, they then realised an innocent man was being fitted up and felt compelled to speak out. This to me is a plausible reason for a delay...and that is IF the information is not true that the Smiths did indeed report it within 2 days and the PJ weren't interested because the timing was wrong (due to the efforts by the McCanns and friends to alter the timeline).

This story of contacting the police within 2 days…

The Smiths never mentioned this in their interviews with the police or the media
The PJ has no record of any such contact
The Smiths have given no detail about this alleged contact, whether it was by ’phone, or by travelling to Portimao Police Station, or whatever
The first we were told about this alleged contact was a day after the Crimewatch McCann Special in October 2013 in the Mirror.

The story is completely unsubstantiated and was likely given to the Mirror by Clarence Mitchell, the Master Media Manipulator

How many people in a missing child case would tell the police, 'We didn't come forward because we didn't want to get involved.' More likely you would try and make a more palatable excuse. Just saying.

For many reasons, I remain convinced the Smiths saw Gerry McCann on that ill-fated night, and have voted accordingly in the poll.

The range of people who think that the Smiths really did see Gerry McCann that night is interesting. This entire belief, by the way, rests on the assumption that Madeleine died sometime in the late afternoon or early evening of 3 May. In support of Smithman = Gerry McCann we have:

Goncalo Amaral, as set out in his book (thought whether he would agree to that now is another matter)
Pat Brown, U.S. Criminal Profiler
Johanna Renstein, who said bluntly in her widely-publices theory: “What happened now when Gerry ran into the group of the Smith family?”, clearly believing that Gerry was really carrying Madeleine’s body through the streets of Praia da Luz just as his wife was raising the alarm and, last but not least
former member here, Rosalinda Hutton, late of ‘Internet Troll’ fame
all but, I think, four regular posters on candyfloss’s forum and
a minority (albeit a substantial one) of posters on CMOMM.

Never mind all the other evidence, I credit Dr Gerald McCann with a great deal more intelligence than to carry his daughter, who’d died just hours earlier, clad only in pyjamas, through the streets of Praia da Luz just as his wife and the Tapas gang were raising the alarm.

Johanna Renstein even thinks Gerry found time to hide her body temporarily in an abandoned house after being seen by the Smiths – something he hadn’t planned, presumably?

Quote Johanna Renstein: “The 30 minutes [Gerry had] planned for the removal would be far too long, so an intermediate place had to be found that would withstand the first searches and would have been relatively close to the Smith sighting. There was an abandoned house right at the crossing that has recently been mentioned by Goncalo Amaral in a newspaper interview".

by pennylane 26.02.15 15:33

Hi Tony, its good to see you too, and thank you for your above reply. You are so kind and patient to take time to explain why you have strong doubts.
As you say, on this one occasion, we have to agree to disagree. At least for now. roses

Even the motive/s cited for Mr Smith's alleged fabrication, make no sense to me. I'm afraid I'm firmly stuck in the Smith camp. Also I'm absolutely certain a person can have a flash back that is clearer than the original memory because (as I have explained in the past), it has happened to me!

I am of the same opinion as GA and PB et al, that Maddie died during the evening of 3rd May, and I think it possible she was found after the initial scream/alarm was heard, forcing Gerry to make an instant sink or swim decision.

Will we ever know the answers I wonder?

by G-Unit 26.02.15 16:55

I don't think the Smiths saw Gerald McCann. If Madeleine had been found dead at close to 10pm it would have been an extremely high risk strategy to carry her through the streets of Praia da Luz.

Also, I think Kate McCann could have been setting the scene at the Tapas restaurant when she spoke to her friends about Madeleine (and Sean) crying and about whether she should be leaving the door unlocked or not. To me, this suggests that she knew what was going to happen later.

It's also interesting that everyone except the McCanns was at the Paraiso restaurant on CCTV earlier that evening. At some point David Payne was questioned by DC Marshall of Leicester Police who said;

He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If David Payne was at the McCann's apartment at 5pm, rather than at 6.30pm as he later said, then there must have been a reason for that? A problem at 5pm would have given ample time for planning and removal if needed IMO.

by j.rob 26.02.15 17:13

pennylane wrote:My theory of this case is simple. Sedation/neglect of 3 toddlers leading to the death of one, and a last minute panic and pandemonium in hiding the body to prevent arrest and loss of everything, followed by a truly pathetic attempt at back fitting an abduction story, that to this day falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. I believe Gerry ran into the Smiths on that ill fated night, and Jane Tanner was roped in to give him a fighting chance after they feared he would be identified. (jmho)

I applaud all the work and attention to detail in R D Hall's videos, and it will be interesting to see if he disparages the Smiths in his new video. I do hope not I must confess.

I think it is far worse then sedation and neglect, unfortunately. But I do agree about the last-minute panic and pandemonium. I think one of the reasons this case is so complicated is because last-minute panic and pandemonium points firmly away from the theory of a pre-planned abduction. And points much more towards the accident cover-up theory. That there was sedation and neglect leading to an accident, say, or over-dosing. And in a last minute panic TM concoct the 'abduction' story to cover up what really happened.

However, there is so much that does point towards pre-planning. Plus, if it really was 'just' an accident - and even if all three children had been sedated - why take the risk of concocting an 'abduction' story at the very last minute? It's just so risky. They all have to line their stories up (which they failed to do adequately) they have to agree on how 'the abduction' got into the apartment (which they failed to do) when s/he got in (also confusion around this as early eye-witnesses report hearing commotion about a child gone missing as early as 9.15pm whereas Kate, in her book, claims she raised the alarm at 10pm which is much later.

If it was an accident/sedation and they wanted to cover it up, they would have been better off just claiming Madeleine had disappeared and they had no idea what had happened to her. As the McCanns themselves have said many times, abduction by a total stranger is so rare that they felt it was safe to leave their children at night in an unlocked apartment without a babysitter. Madeleine could have woken up and wandered off. She could have wandered off and being picked up by someone who then whisked her away. She could have wandered off and fallen down a well, for instance.

All of these things are possible. Unlikely, admittedly, but not impossible. And they wouldn't have had to tie themselves in knots with their lies. Children can, and do, disappear without a trace. It is not unheard of.

Why choose to come up with the least likely scenario? The scenario which the McCanns felt there was no risk of (Kate writes in her book if they had felt there was any risk at all they would not have left the children. Which strikes me as one of the more stupid things she writes. As clearly leaving three children under three unsupervised does expose them to risk. Most likely the risk of waking up and becoming distressed. But also the risk of an accident or the risk of accidental poising, wandering off and so on.)

But of course we have to factor in the £££££££££££££. No nasty mystery abductor = NO FUND.

There is SO MUCH evidence of pre-planning, IMO. TM were so keen to get the media involved at an early stage. Several TM members contacted the press by midnight, I think. The fund was set up at lightening speed with Gerry's brother giving up his job to take over running the fund full-time. How could he know that Madeleine would not be found? Photos of Madeleine - or a child who is supposed to be Madeleine - were allegedly printed out early on at a printer in the resort. But some have suggested that the posters were not printed out on that evening and had already been taken prior to the holiday. Which most definitely would mean pre-planning of an abduction. Also, why go against police advice to flag up the coloboma when police said this would be the child's death sentence? And - even more confounding, why flag up a coloboma when Madeleine McCann did not have one? Why did the early poster campaigns state: 'Look for Maddie' when the McCanns later declared that Madeleine did not answer to that nick-name. Despite their being evidence that Madeleine was known as 'Maddie'?

Leicester police force linking phone-calls from members of the public to the McCanns when the,y as the last people to have seen Madeleine, are likely to be the prime suspects? That points towards giant McScam to me. With tentacles all over the place including the police.

Nevertheless, the only way I can make any sense of these seeming contradictions is to theorize that there was indeed a giant (media) hoax to stage an abduction during that week at Ocean Club. The child who was going to be 'abducted' was to be between three and four, blonde, photogenic and a girl.

The plan went wrong; was hijacked or deliberately sabotaged by someone/several people and/or someone or several people pulled out at the last minute.

This is 'the disaster' that Gerry spoke of to relatives at home when he called them on Thursday night/the early hours of Friday morning. I think the "f****** b*******" that Kate cried out 'had taken her' are, I do believe, people who pulled out at the last minute.

Team McCann were forced to cobble together their own abduction tale that very evening, imo. In the confusion, no shutters were jemmied but the Mc family back at home came out with the pre-arranged script, imo, claiming that the shutters had been jemmied. Team McCann were in such a last-minute panic that they hadn't had time to tell relatives about 'the disaster.' As per plan, Gerry's brother gave up his job and took over the running of The Fund ~~Fraud~~. Family members who came out and started to 'smell a rat' were hastily dispatched back home on the 'Granny Express' with a flea in their ear by Gerry.

The McScam had to go on regardless.

All of this is not entirely unconnected, imo, with Gerry McCann's alleged 'encounter' with TV director Jez Wilkins outside apartment 5A at around 9.15pm that fateful Thursday evening. Also not unconnected with the Nylors (investment banker) who we know were guests at Ocean Club that week. And, it would appear by looking at the creche signing in sheets, whose daughter Elizabeth Gerry McCann signed into the kids' club along with, allegedly, his own daughter Madeleine. However, if, as many have speculated, something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week as she was unable to go to the kids's club, then it is not impossible that the substitute Madeleine theory has some merit. So as to not raise suspicions at the kids' club when Madeleine McCann did no attend.

And if Gerry really was signing in at least one other children into the OC kids' club that week - EN - then it is not unreasonable to speculate about the nature of the relationship between the Naylor family and the McCanns and TM generally. There is no mention of EN in Kate's book which is odd I think. As if EN was happy to be signed in by Gerry you would imagine that EN trusts him and that Madeleine and EN are friends.

Then there is speculation that EN's best friend is Madalene Rider and that she was with EN that week. And she could have been signed into the kids' club alongside EN that week by Gerry McCann. Therefore hoodwinking OC staff, parents and children that Madeleine McCann was alive and well and going to the kids' club every day up to and including Thursday.

And of course if there is any merit in the theory above, then one wonders exactly what the Naylor family might make of this arrangement? Why allow GM to sign in their daughter? And, if EN's friend Madalene was signed in by GM instead of Madeleine McCann, then one wonders even more what her parents would have made of this arrangement?

Why would they agree to this?

So one could speculate that, perhaps, other people 'got wind' of what TM were up to that week (and maybe even stuff they were up to before that week) and decided to 'pull the plug' on it. I wonder if this has anything to do with Robert Murat flying out at the last minute on Tuesday morning, I think it was? I had always assumed this was a damage-limitation exercise but perhaps it is more complicated than that.

In any event, if someone or several people decided to pull the plug that week, the Mcs may well have been landed right in it. Which would account for the extraordinary praying gestures that the Portuguese police noted when they arrived on Thursday evening. With both Kate and Gerry on their hands and knees praying like Arabs.

Yes, I do believe they were landed right in it. Right up to their necks.

And I suppose some might say it served them right.

Theories, as always.

by j.rob 26.02.15 17:31

G-Unit wrote:I don't think the Smiths saw Gerald McCann. If Madeleine had been found dead at close to 10pm it would have been an extremely high risk strategy to carry her through the streets of Praia da Luz.

Also, I think Kate McCann could have been setting the scene at the Tapas restaurant when she spoke to her friends about Madeleine (and Sean) crying and about whether she should be leaving the door unlocked or not. To me, this suggests that she knew what was going to happen later.

It's also interesting that everyone except the McCanns was at the Paraiso restaurant on CCTV earlier that evening. At some point David Payne was questioned by DC Marshall of Leicester Police who said;

He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If David Payne was at the McCann's apartment at 5pm, rather than at 6.30pm as he later said, then there must have been a reason for that? A problem at 5pm would have given ample time for planning and removal if needed IMO.

I agree. Why risk carrying your dead child? Especially at the exact time that Kate is supposed to have called the alarm.That would just be crazily risky, even if, as I suspect TM, were forced to think on their feet at the very last minute. I think Madeleine would have been removed from the apartment earlier than this. At the latest by the time of DP's alleged visit in the early evening.

I agree about the David Payne visit early that Thursday evening. Very suspicious. These timings just so happened to coincide roughly with the timings for the men's tennis social that Thursday evening which the Tapas men took part in apparently. Which would mean, or course, that DM or another male tennis player could legitimately be leaving apartment 5A or another apartment at OC with a large sports bag that might be able to conceal something but would attract no suspicion at all. And of course we know that Russell, I think it was, stated that they did not have a sports bag that was large enough to hide a tennis racket. But only a rucksack with a bottle of water. So I think I will take that to mean that they did have a sports bag that was large enough to conceal something much bigger than a tennis racket. This would be one way to remove a small child or a small child's body from the resort without attracting any suspicion. A large tennis or golf bag. (Didn't Murat have a meeting that week at a golf club nearby?) I wonder if any of the Tapas played golf that week? Gerry is a huge golf fan? Wasn't the car they hired also previously hired by golfing buddies of GM??

The other way to conceal and remove a small child or a small child's body from the resort would be inside a buggy or pram with a covering over it. So you could not identify the child inside.

Which, coincidentally no doubt (ahem!) it is alleged by TM and, indeed Jez Wilkins, that this very vehicle just happened to be circling around Ocean Club resort on the night of Thursday 4th May. As, apparently, Jez Wilkins's baby would not sleep so he decided to push him around in a pram and just happened to bump into Gerry outside apartment 5A after Gerry's final check at 9.15pm.

All these amazing coincidences!

by **Tony Bennett** 26.02.15 20:19

Doug D wrote:I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the Smiths are (pennylane) ‘good people’ or not, although obviously have my own opinion regarding the veracity of the sighting and subsequent reporting.

I read on the CF forum a posting from Tigger where she said that Hall had confirmed to her that Smith was the sender of the e-mail asking for a correction regarding his knowledge of Murat.

If this is indeed correct, presumably Hall has subsequently entered into some correspondence with Smith and hopefully we will gain some insight/clarification/explanation of the Smith sighting in Halls next set of video releases where he:

‘examines in a level of detail never covered before in any TV documentary, the claims that Madeleine was abducted. Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following the disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see.’

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@ Doug D Replies as follows:

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

I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the Smiths are (pennylane) ‘good people’ or not, although obviously have my own opinion regarding the veracity of the sighting and subsequent reporting.

REPLY: Such evidence as we have on the record is that Martin Smith (and his family) are 'good people'. The evidence comes from the Drogehda police officer, Liam Hogan, who interviewed Smith and wrote to the PJ on 30 January 2008: “I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person”. There is no contrary evidence. My doubts about the genuineness of the 'Smithman' sighting are based solely on the inexplicable delays, condradictions and other circumstances of (a) the original alleged 'sighting' (b) the subsequent identifying of Gerry McCann (c) the creation of the Henri Exton e-fits and (d) his active co-operation with Operation Grange and the McCann Team in various ways since early 2009 (which I've covered elsewhere) I read on the CF forum a posting from Tigger where she said that Hall had confirmed to her that Smith was the sender of the e-mail asking for a correction regarding his knowledge of Murat.

+++++

I read on the CF forum a posting from Tigger where she said that Hall had confirmed to her that Smith was the sender of the e-mail asking for a correction regarding his knowledge of Murat.

REPLY: 'tigger' chose her words carefully on the candyfloss forum on 24 February. She wrote: "All I can say with certainty is that the email sent to Richard D. Hall was not sent by the 'wrong' Smith. I asked, R.D. Hall answered".

The reference to the 'wrong' Martin Smith arises from the fact that 'our' Martin Smith of 'Smithman' fame lives in Maple Drive, Drogheda.

There is another Martin Smith whose residential and/or business addresses are 14 The Crescent, Dundalk, and 146 Ard Easmuinn, Dundalk.

I had made the error of thinking they were the same person. They are not. The Dundalk Martin Smith had set up a number of businesses and had applied to an Irish business loan company naming some very unlikely chief executives of major international businesses as fellow Directors.

I received correspondence from the second Martin Smith, but not the first. The second Martin Smith asked me to remove all previous references to his companies on this forum and elsewhere - and I did so without delay. He thanked me - more than once.

Before coming back to 'our' Martin Smith, the concerns I posted about the second Martin Smith's business loan application remain as valid as they were when i first posted about them.

Secondly, a suggestion has been made to me that the second Martin Smith may be related to 'our' Martin Smith. I am investigating that.

Richard Hall published an e-mail purportedly sent to him by 'our' Martin Smith. In terms, it said that he wanted to correct a statement made by Hall on his film that he was a 'friend' of Robert Murat. He denied that he was. And that was it - nothing else.

Hall followed that up by asking 'our' Martin Smith to prove who he was. I am told that he provided some identification by e-mail but that that was not wholly convincing. I am also told that when sending his two mails, 'our' Martin Smith used an unverifiable 'gmail' address. The question as to whether this was an email genuinely sent by the 'right' Martin Smith is not, therefore, entirely clear.

The second, 'wrong' Martin Smith, from Dundalk, also used an unverifiable 'gmail' address when writing to me. There were some strange aspects to the correspondence from him, some of which I published on the 'candyfloss' forum, and can do so here if anyone is interested.

+++++

If this is indeed correct, presumably Hall has subsequently entered into some correspondence with Smith and hopefully we will gain some insight/clarification/explanation of the Smith sighting in Halls next set of video releases where he:

‘examines in a level of detail never covered before in any TV documentary, the claims that Madeleine was abducted. Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following the disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see.’

REPLY: Let's all hope it's as informative and popular as his previous effort was

by G-Unit 26.02.15 20:58

It's a complete nightmare actually. I wonder if all police investigations have the problem of statements which make no sense whatsoever? I read something the other day which completely destroyed Steve Carpenter's account of how he met Robert Murat. Why he would want to make things up is completely beyond me. No wonder we sometimes think everyone in Praia da Luz was joined in some huge conspiracy lol.
spin

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Doug D 26.02.15 21:09

Thank you Tony.

‘If this is indeed correct’ looks increasingly like it may well not be!

I read Tigger’s post as her confirmation that ‘our’ Smithman had sent the e-mail, but reading it again, as you suggest, all it actually confirms is that it was not the ‘wrong’ Mr Smith that sent the e-mails, allowing for the doubts that Hall seemingly still harbours.

Maybe our friends in Glasgow will report back when Hall’s latest tour starts in the city on 26^th March, a week before the films release on 3rd April.

by pennylane 26.02.15 21:40

j.rob wrote:
pennylane wrote:My theory of this case is simple. Sedation/neglect of 3 toddlers leading to the death of one, and a last minute panic and pandemonium in hiding the body to prevent arrest and loss of everything, followed by a truly pathetic attempt at back fitting an abduction story, that to this day falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. I believe Gerry ran into the Smiths on that ill fated night, and Jane Tanner was roped in to give him a fighting chance after they feared he would be identified. (jmho)

I applaud all the work and attention to detail in R D Hall's videos, and it will be interesting to see if he disparages the Smiths in his new video. I do hope not I must confess.

I think it is far worse then sedation and neglect, unfortunately. But I do agree about the last-minute panic and pandemonium. I think one of the reasons this case is so complicated is because last-minute panic and pandemonium points firmly away from the theory of a pre-planned abduction. And points much more towards the accident cover-up theory. That there was sedation and neglect leading to an accident, say, or over-dosing. And in a last minute panic TM concoct the 'abduction' story to cover up what really happened.

However, there is so much that does point towards pre-planning. Plus, if it really was 'just' an accident - and even if all three children had been sedated - why take the risk of concocting an 'abduction' story at the very last minute? It's just so risky. They all have to line their stories up (which they failed to do adequately) they have to agree on how 'the abduction' got into the apartment (which they failed to do) when s/he got in (also confusion around this as early eye-witnesses report hearing commotion about a child gone missing as early as 9.15pm whereas Kate, in her book, claims she raised the alarm at 10pm which is much later.

If it was an accident/sedation and they wanted to cover it up, they would have been better off just claiming Madeleine had disappeared and they had no idea what had happened to her. As the McCanns themselves have said many times, abduction by a total stranger is so rare that they felt it was safe to leave their children at night in an unlocked apartment without a babysitter. Madeleine could have woken up and wandered off. She could have wandered off and being picked up by someone who then whisked her away. She could have wandered off and fallen down a well, for instance.

All of these things are possible. Unlikely, admittedly, but not impossible. And they wouldn't have had to tie themselves in knots with their lies. Children can, and do, disappear without a trace. It is not unheard of.

Why choose to come up with the least likely scenario? The scenario which the McCanns felt there was no risk of (Kate writes in her book if they had felt there was any risk at all they would not have left the children. Which strikes me as one of the more stupid things she writes. As clearly leaving three children under three unsupervised does expose them to risk. Most likely the risk of waking up and becoming distressed. But also the risk of an accident or the risk of accidental poising, wandering off and so on.)

But of course we have to factor in the £££££££££££££. No nasty mystery abductor = NO FUND.

There is SO MUCH evidence of pre-planning, IMO. TM were so keen to get the media involved at an early stage. Several TM members contacted the press by midnight, I think. The fund was set up at lightening speed with Gerry's brother giving up his job to take over running the fund full-time. How could he know that Madeleine would not be found? Photos of Madeleine - or a child who is supposed to be Madeleine - were allegedly printed out early on at a printer in the resort. But some have suggested that the posters were not printed out on that evening and had already been taken prior to the holiday. Which most definitely would mean pre-planning of an abduction. Also, why go against police advice to flag up the coloboma when police said this would be the child's death sentence? And - even more confounding, why flag up a coloboma when Madeleine McCann did not have one? Why did the early poster campaigns state: 'Look for Maddie' when the McCanns later declared that Madeleine did not answer to that nick-name. Despite their being evidence that Madeleine was known as 'Maddie'?

Leicester police force linking phone-calls from members of the public to the McCanns when the,y as the last people to have seen Madeleine, are likely to be the prime suspects? That points towards giant McScam to me. With tentacles all over the place including the police.

Nevertheless, the only way I can make any sense of these seeming contradictions is to theorize that there was indeed a giant (media) hoax to stage an abduction during that week at Ocean Club. The child who was going to be 'abducted' was to be between three and four, blonde, photogenic and a girl.

The plan went wrong; was hijacked or deliberately sabotaged by someone/several people and/or someone or several people pulled out at the last minute.

This is 'the disaster' that Gerry spoke of to relatives at home when he called them on Thursday night/the early hours of Friday morning. I think the "f****** b*******" that Kate cried out 'had taken her' are, I do believe, people who pulled out at the last minute.

Team McCann were forced to cobble together their own abduction tale that very evening, imo. In the confusion, no shutters were jemmied but the Mc family back at home came out with the pre-arranged script, imo, claiming that the shutters had been jemmied. Team McCann were in such a last-minute panic that they hadn't had time to tell relatives about 'the disaster.' As per plan, Gerry's brother gave up his job and took over the running of The Fund ~~Fraud~~. Family members who came out and started to 'smell a rat' were hastily dispatched back home on the 'Granny Express' with a flea in their ear by Gerry.

The McScam had to go on regardless.

All of this is not entirely unconnected, imo, with Gerry McCann's alleged 'encounter' with TV director Jez Wilkins outside apartment 5A at around 9.15pm that fateful Thursday evening. Also not unconnected with the Nylors (investment banker) who we know were guests at Ocean Club that week. And, it would appear by looking at the creche signing in sheets, whose daughter Elizabeth Gerry McCann signed into the kids' club along with, allegedly, his own daughter Madeleine. However, if, as many have speculated, something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week as she was unable to go to the kids's club, then it is not impossible that the substitute Madeleine theory has some merit. So as to not raise suspicions at the kids' club when Madeleine McCann did no attend.

And if Gerry really was signing in at least one other children into the OC kids' club that week - EN - then it is not unreasonable to speculate about the nature of the relationship between the Naylor family and the McCanns and TM generally. There is no mention of EN in Kate's book which is odd I think. As if EN was happy to be signed in by Gerry you would imagine that EN trusts him and that Madeleine and EN are friends.

Then there is speculation that EN's best friend is Madalene Rider and that she was with EN that week. And she could have been signed into the kids' club alongside EN that week by Gerry McCann. Therefore hoodwinking OC staff, parents and children that Madeleine McCann was alive and well and going to the kids' club every day up to and including Thursday.

And of course if there is any merit in the theory above, then one wonders exactly what the Naylor family might make of this arrangement? Why allow GM to sign in their daughter? And, if EN's friend Madalene was signed in by GM instead of Madeleine McCann, then one wonders even more what her parents would have made of this arrangement?

Why would they agree to this?

So one could speculate that, perhaps, other people 'got wind' of what TM were up to that week (and maybe even stuff they were up to before that week) and decided to 'pull the plug' on it. I wonder if this has anything to do with Robert Murat flying out at the last minute on Tuesday morning, I think it was? I had always assumed this was a damage-limitation exercise but perhaps it is more complicated than that.

In any event, if someone or several people decided to pull the plug that week, the Mcs may well have been landed right in it. Which would account for the extraordinary praying gestures that the Portuguese police noted when they arrived on Thursday evening. With both Kate and Gerry on their hands and knees praying like Arabs.

Yes, I do believe they were landed right in it. Right up to their necks.

And I suppose some might say it served them right.

Theories, as always.

Hi j.rob,

I'm afraid peoples theories and opinions are quite cemented at this juncture. You may be right re what happened being far worse than sedation, I doubt we shall ever know. Personally I believe that the criminal act of drugging three toddlers and leaving them to go out, and maybe one vomits and asphyxiates, or wakes and wanders in a drugged state and falls to her death, would bring some very serious charges indeed. The reputations of these two doctors would have been annihilated, and the twins would have been removed immediately, and goodness knows what else might come to the fore. They would have needed astronomical finances to cover legal costs, and their careers and assets would be history by the time the trial was over. Let's not forget they were in a foreign country and that is where they would have been arrested and jailed. The implications are mind boggling.

As I have said many times, I believe everything happened fast, hence the risks that were taken. I'm not saying the Mc's and co weren't up to something else on that ill-fated holiday, who knows, but a pre-planned hoax gone wrong, I simply don't buy that. Sorry.

jmho

by aiyoyo 26.02.15 23:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard Hall published an e-mail purportedly sent to him by 'our' Martin Smith. In terms, it said that he wanted to correct a statement made by Hall on his film that he was a 'friend' of Robert Murat. He denied that he was. And that was it - nothing else.

Hall followed that up by asking 'our' Martin Smith to prove who he was. I am told that he provided some identification by e-mail but that that was not wholly convincing. I am also told that when sending his two mails, 'our' Martin Smith used an unverifiable 'gmail' address. The question as to whether this was an email genuinely sent by the 'right' Martin Smith is not, therefore, entirely clear.

The second, 'wrong' Martin Smith, from Dundalk, also used an unverifiable 'gmail' address when writing to me.

Using "gmail" is pretty common, but that's not an irrefutable way of proving or disproving identity, unless he'd provided other form of authentication. Although, strictly speaking, he's not obliged to authenticate himself you'd think anyone wanting to be taken seriously would provide proof of identification.

By chance, is the "gmail" address of this "Dundalk Smith" (that had written to you) same as the other "Drogheda Smith" that had corresponded with Hall?

The question remains WHO had informed "Drogheda Smith" about Hall's videos?
In other words, how did he find out so quickly about Hall's videos if no body had informed him?
Unless he's an avid reader of this forum (even other forum) or he's an avid audience of Hall's channel, it seems too much of a coincidence that he would find out about Hall's videos so quickly, literally when the videos were hot off release.

The other, more pertinent, question is - how did the "wrong" Dundalk Smith know about this forum that he wrote you to ask you to remove contents pertaining to him?

Don't tell me both the right Smith and wrong Smith were readers of this forum? That would be really freaky !

by **Tony Bennett** 26.02.15 23:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Richard Hall published an e-mail purportedly sent to him by 'our' Martin Smith. In terms, it said that he wanted to correct a statement made by Hall on his film that he was a 'friend' of Robert Murat. He denied that he was. And that was it - nothing else.

Hall followed that up by asking 'our' Martin Smith to prove who he was. I am told that he provided some identification by e-mail but that that was not wholly convincing. I am also told that when sending his two mails, 'our' Martin Smith used an unverifiable 'gmail' address. The question as to whether this was an email genuinely sent by the 'right' Martin Smith is not, therefore, entirely clear.

The second, 'wrong' Martin Smith, from Dundalk, also used an unverifiable 'gmail' address when writing to me.
Using "gmail" is pretty common, but that's not an irrefutable way of proving or disproving identity, unless he'd provided other form of authentication.

Although, strictly speaking, he's not obliged to authenticate himself you'd think anyone wanting to be taken seriously would provide proof of identification.

REPLY: 'Our' Martin Smith, the 'right' one, would probably say that he has provided Hall with sufficient identification.

By chance, is the "gmail" address of this "Dundalk Smith" (that had written to you) same as the other "Drogheda Smith" that had corresponded with Hall?

REPLY: The 'wrong' Martin Smith, the Dundalk one, is a member of this forum, namely 'rongun'.

The membership record shows that he joined here on 9 October 2014, his last visit here was on 11 October at 9.37am, and he has never made a post here.

He first e-mailed me via admin on CMOMM on 9 October 2014 at 6.44pm. I replied at 9.46pm the same evening.

His e-mail address, where we exchanged emails for a couple of days, is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have been told that this is different from the gmail address of the 'right' Martin Smith.

Here is an extract from the first e-mail from the 'wrong' Martin Smith - spelling etc. as per the original - in which he deals with my comments about the famous CEOs who are purported to be fellow Directors of Golf Net Ltd:

QUOTE

Hi Tony,

I have been reading the Forum on Madeline McCann's disappearance, with particular interest in your article on Martin Smith (Managing Director & Founder of Golf Net Limited).

I'm afraid that the Martin Smith you are discussing is not the Martin Smith that is a witness in the Madeleine McCann case.
I know this to be true because I actually am the Martin Smith of your post and I have never owned a property in Portugal, or ever been to Praia da Luz. Nor am I a a witness to anything concerning the disappearance of Madeline McCann. The Martin Smith who is the witness lives in a town called Drogheda, Ireland. I live in Dundalk and have done so for more than thirty years...

I, personally, fully appreciate that what you wrote was done in good faith and with the best of intentions and I think your interest in getting to the truth of Madeleine's disappearance is admirable in the extreme. But I should advise that the other people you mention in the post may not be so understanding...T

The information that you found on BES Opportunities in Maynooth, County Kildare - link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was scraped by the owner of that site without my consent. Hence the inaccuracies,mis-spellings, typos and sketchy information. It was gathered willy-nilly from several sources and could be nothing but incomplete. However unlikely it may seem, it is accurate in some regards. John Coleman (ex-Bose) is a partner and substantial shareholder. We served together as army officers many years ago. Count Andreas Faber-Castell is a long-standing, close personal friend and is a board member...

I understand perfectly how this might have happened since, at the time that the name Martin Smith appeared in the papers, I received numerous calls - not all of them pleasant I might add - about the case.

Tony, may I suggest that, in your own best interest, it might be wise to delete this post before either of the above become aware of it... would really prefer not to have to make my partners aware of it. I'm sure you would as well.

Regards,

Martin Smith

P.S. Keep up the good work.

UNQUOTE

Correspondence occurred over the next 36 hours during which I agreed to remove the incorrect passages of my posts and did so.

On 12 October at 8.14pm, the 'wrong' Martin Smith pronounced himself satisfied and wrote:

QUOTE

Tony,

It would seem that you were as good as your word. So all's well that ends well. Many thanks.

And I really do hope you get to the truth of the affair...

UNQUOTE

WHO had informed "Drogheda Smith" about Hall's videos? In other words, how did he find out so quickly about Hall's videos if nobody had informed him? Unless he's an avid reader of this forum (even other forum) or he's an avid audience of Hall's channel, it seems too much of a coincidence that he would find out about Hall's videos so quickly, literally when the videos were hot off release.

REPLY: I don't know, but you're right in that he sent his e-mail to Hall before the YouTube videos started to be uploaded on 8 August

The other, more pertinent, question is - how did the "wrong" Dundalk Smith know about this forum that he wrote you to ask you to remove contents pertaining to him?

REPLY: I think it is probable that he found out from former member here 'tigger', who apparently did some research on the Dundalk Martin Smith and contacted him about the misinformation.

Don't tell me both the right Smith and wrong Smith were readers of this forum? That would be really freaky!

REPLY: I've no reason to think that the 'right' Martin Smith is a member here, but being - according to former DCI Andy Redwood of the Yard - 'the centre of our focus', and someone who was interviewed twice by him, it would be surprising if he didn't take an interest in what was said about him

by Knitted 27.02.15 5:19

Does any 'personal correspondence' online, here or anywhere else, matter?

Evidence matters...and even then it is of little or no interest to: (a) the media & (b) The Soap Opera, X Factor, craving public

Until reporters, and 'our' MPs, and our 'Celebs', begin to place the likes of 'truth', or 'honour', or of 'integrity', etc. over bolstering and feeding their personal 'Gravy Train of Greed' and people's desire to buy an ever-bigger flat-screen TV, or upgrade to a 5-ring gas-hob, or own a 'fancier' coffee peculator, or even to fill their kitchen shelves with a 'nicer' Olive Oil than the 'lower-priced-own-brand' option... then our kids, and our teens, and even our fellow adults, will continue to be abused and, quite royally, be f*cked over, (willingly or otherwise), for a multitude of inhumane (aka "immoral") reasons.

If the abuse of children worries us then we simply should ...
- Simply stop paying taxes...
- Simply stop perpetuating this abusive and corrupt system...
- Simply stop voting...
- Simply ignore our self appointed 'political leaders'...
(Indeed...David [Tory leader] Cameron's cousin is Harriet [Labour Deputy Leader] Harman... If that doesn't expose the utter charade of modern 'democracy' I really do not know what does!)

Pandering to this charade just perpetuates the game and gives them power.

Be brave. Be moral. Cut out the middle men and 'do good' directly to your neighbours.

I've not paid income tax in 5yrs.
I've not watched TV in 5yrs.
I haven't let anyone in to read my gas/electric meters for about 3yrs (I pay what I calculate to be the appropriate amount)
I've simply not played their sh*tty 'pocket lining' games
I'm still here... I'm still feeding myself... I give directly to (secular) charities (thus bypassing the even older charade of religions)
I'm (hopefully) a great dad to my kids...
...and I've never been happier.

The 'system' is a scam that benefits the 'Establishment'... nothing more, nothing less.

We...The people... We that don't want our kids f*cked and abused and indoctrinated, have the power to stop what is going on... we just need to be brave enough to unplug.

I've done it.

It can be done... don't fall for the myth that's peddled that says "you are safest with the bureaucracy your government provides".

We can destroy this abusive political/economic/religious/media system within days.. if enough of us can be arsed.

Just stop pandering to it...Just stop acquiescing to it... Stop praying to it's 'god'... Stop watching its 'celebs'... Stop paying for it and feeding it.

Just do it... They only have power if we continue to let them.

For example: Years ago people got their pensions and benefit payments in cash. It was all Green Giros and Pension/Benefits books. BUT...moving cash and paying with cash meant the Establishment couldn't cream off their cut. The masses then, as they are now, were too wrapped up with their 'Soap Operas' and their 'Cook Books' and their 'fashions' and their demand for short-sighted convenience, and their silly beliefs in horoscopes, deities and crystals, and the resulting perceived cultural divisions, to even begin to remotely grasp what was at stake.

Two decades ago the Post Office was the UK's biggest mover of cash. In any given week about 80% of 'live' cash passed through a Post Office.

Thus, if ever the system of moving cash around collapsed (i.e. POLtd CViT vans stopped delivering), or if the DSS payments' systems went tits up, then Post Offices couldn't have 'paid out'. Analysis showed that within 3 days a state of National Emergency would have been called and the UK would have had the army deployed on the streets to stop the inevitable riots.

Forget the riots a few years ago... forget the May day smashing of McDonald's windows in Cannon Street... forget Brixton...forget Notting Hill...forget Keith Blakelock and Blair Peach... If something had gone wrong with the cash supply then we are talking about the very rapid elimination of cash supply in the UK. The fact it was kept so secret was because if the CWU (Communication Worker's Union) ever realised just what actual power they had at their fingertips (i.e. Cash in transit deliveries... and not the media 'headline-grabbing' strikes in Crown Post Offices, which were always irrelevant as by 1990 >95% of Post Office were run by private business people and wouldn't have ever gone on strike), then they'd have very easily bought the UK to its knees.

Hmmmh... Maybe they did know. In fact I have no doubt the Unions did...As all the UCW/CWU reps I ever met were utter selfish misogynistic sh*ts who cared not one iota about Customer Service or their non-male, White, Members... they were evidently only ever interested in maintaining the status quo and on a personal level only in how much time each week they could scam away from their 'paid duties' to sit at home on their (invariably) white, (invariably) male, (presumably spotty) arses! :0)

Anyway, by the late 90s a £1bn tri-partite (Gov/POLtd/DHSS) project was kicked off to automate the benefits/payments/personal data system in order to mitigate the risk of the "3 days and the Army will be needed" scenario.

Fujitsu won the contract and were guaranteed an income. However, it was found that the DSS couldn't automate themselves because (at the time) a worryingly high number of people had been allocated duplicate NIS numbers under the old manual system, and to fix the errors across many departments would have quickly blown the business case... and so the DHSS (i.e. UK Gov) pulled out.

Rather than admit to the error, very quickly, the Establishment serving press and media were deployed to start producing almost daily articles about 'Fraud'...'Benefits Gangs'... 'Nigerian Fraudsters'... 'DSS Council Estate scams'... etc. etc.

The public mood shifted. People started thinking that UK Gov should develop a solution...and so, conveniently, and not at all reported in the MSM, the Post Office was made to carry the can and overnight went from a profitable business, to one with a £1bn debt. The counter automation did little to combat fraud... but it looked good! ;P What mattered was that Fujitsu had been promised a £1bn contract as part of the tri-partite agreement and by jove they needed their guaranteed profit, (yep...the profit that had been negotiated and secured relentlessly in the boozey lunchtime strip-clubs of Clerkenwall, all dutifully charged to Fujitsu's plastic cards! Wink

) ...and with the DHSS having to pull-out... the pseudo 'Public Sector' Post Office was the only available balance sheet on which to place the cost(s).

Presumably Eastenders and Corrie grabbed the headlines that year?... Maybe Top Gear started getting ratings?... Maybe even the price of 'Hundreds and Thousands' went up by a penny or two in the cake aisle at the local supermarket?... but what no one noticed was that a much loved 'cuddly-wuddly-social service', providing at the time over 20,000 Post Offices, suddenly had to underwrite Fujitsu's costs of a £1bn IT project.

The result?

The UK now has c.11,500 branches (many open for only a few hours). A decline of c.45% of a 'brand' that many (wealthy) people would think of as the epitome of a much loved Rural Britain (along with leafy lanes, the sound of leather on willow, lazy church services and village schools), and that many (unwealthy) people would think of as a once essential, readily accessible, social service.

To fund the £1bn debt was a charade of moving budgets around and of 'Government PR' saying they'd 'fix' the managerial incompetence of the Post Office and of Royal Mail Group. After some years £450 million of taxpayers money was found to enable HMG to say "We are great and we care and we will support Post Offices". But it was simply a roundabout way of hiding the UK Gov's ill-informed tri-partite commitment to Fujitsu that they then had renege on, (Oooh... I could tell you some tales about meetings that took place with the Treasury and the trade-offs between soldier's boots in Iraq, versus rural Post Office closures, versus likely voter reactions and the chances of Labour re-election!!... trust me, anyone that still thinks that their vote is remotely about 'democracy' or 'public services' or about 'priorities for tax paying citizens' should just stay in on Election Day and tune in to Gogglebox, or X-Factor, or TOWIE and stop pretending they have any clue whatsoever!)...

Anyway... to cut a long short short... that's when all your village POs started closing... and when your Town-Centre POs started being converted to 'Franchise' status.

BUT... What no Guardian or Independent media article ever grasped was that the main driver for automating and amalgamating all the respective databases and IT systems was the **fact** that POLtd was the UK's biggest 'mover' of cash and that was a worry... and so the headlines that said "we need automation so as we can pay directly into your bank account to combat fraud" or the headlines that said "Nigerian gangs pocket £1m" were simply tales circulated to get citizens to want, and even to demand, change...even though it effectively 'killed-off' having a local Post Office on every street corner and which in survey after survey, those very same citizens, had said epitomised 'Britain'.

The phrase "Boiling Frogs" springs to mind! laugh

The "Use it or Lose it" campaign to keep local Post Offices open remains the biggest 'Public Mailbag' campaign to UK MPs and to the UK Government ever. Forget the NHS, forget the 1st Iraq war, forget anything else... the campaign against local PO closures during the 'Use it or Lose it' campaign (ironically funded by the UK Gov in a 'foot placed in mouth' inept, roundabout, way... but that's another story) resulted in the biggest correspondence campaign directed to UK MPs! Did it make any difference? No..."LOL!"

The point is...it mattered not one diddlysquat, (I even wrote a report for a Minister that he used as the backbone for his own speech, verbatim, in an address to the HoC). When money is involved, when drunken promises of 5yr profit targets are committed to private companies, then democracy and fairness and the public's expectation that their taxes fund 'value for money' services, is yesterday's claptrap.

So... (if anyone has bothered read this far!)... in a very convoluted way, I was simply trying to say "Don't believe anything you read in the MSM"... It's all, all, all serving a quite different agenda that m,ost people are oblivious to.

Yep... I accept this will be seen as offtopic

... but my point is 'Martin Smith' could be anyone, communicating for any reason, and with any agenda. If an individual paid contractor is on several £ks a day to promote/hide and agenda of HMG f*ck up (as A*** Consultants were used to play the 'game' of securing the £450k HMG payment for POLtd) then they are quite possibly capable of absolutely anything.

by Liz Eagles 27.02.15 6:20

Knitted wrote:Does any 'personal correspondence' online, here or anywhere else, matter?

Evidence matters...and even then it is of little or no interest to: (a) the media & (b) The Soap Opera, X Factor, craving public

Until reporters, and 'our' MPs, and our 'Celebs', begin to place the likes of 'truth', or 'honour', or of 'integrity', etc. over bolstering and feeding their personal 'Gravy Train of Greed' and people's desire to buy an ever-bigger flat-screen TV, or upgrade to a 5-ring gas-hob, or own a 'fancier' coffee peculator, or even to fill their kitchen shelves with a 'nicer' Olive Oil than the 'lower-priced-own-brand' option... then our kids, and our teens, and even our fellow adults, will continue to be abused and, quite royally, be f*cked over, (willingly or otherwise), for a multitude of inhumane (aka "immoral") reasons.

If the abuse of children worries us then we simply should ...
- Simply stop paying taxes...
- Simply stop perpetuating this abusive and corrupt system...
- Simply stop voting...
- Simply ignore our self appointed 'political leaders'...
(Indeed...David [Tory leader] Cameron's cousin is Harriet [Labour Deputy Leader] Harman... If that doesn't expose the utter charade of modern 'democracy' I really do not know what does!)

Pandering to this charade just perpetuates the game and gives them power.

Be brave. Be moral. Cut out the middle men and 'do good' directly to your neighbours.

I've not paid income tax in 5yrs.
I've not watched TV in 5yrs.
I haven't let anyone in to read my gas/electric meters for about 3yrs (I pay what I calculate to be the appropriate amount)
I've simply not played their sh*tty 'pocket lining' games
I'm still here... I'm still feeding myself... I give directly to (secular) charities (thus bypassing the even older charade of religions)
I'm (hopefully) a great dad to my kids...
...and I've never been happier.

The 'system' is a scam that benefits the 'Establishment'... nothing more, nothing less.

We...The people... We that don't want our kids f*cked and abused and indoctrinated, have the power to stop what is going on... we just need to be brave enough to unplug.

I've done it.

It can be done... don't fall for the myth that's peddled that says "you are safest with the bureaucracy your government provides".

We can destroy this abusive political/economic/religious/media system within days.. if enough of us can be arsed.

Just stop pandering to it...Just stop acquiescing to it... Stop praying to it's 'god'... Stop watching its 'celebs'... Stop paying for it and feeding it.

Just do it... They only have power if we continue to let them.

For example: Years ago people got their pensions and benefit payments in cash. It was all Green Giros and Pension/Benefits books. BUT...moving cash and paying with cash meant the Establishment couldn't cream off their cut. The masses then, as they are now, were too wrapped up with their 'Soap Operas' and their 'Cook Books' and their 'fashions' and their demand for short-sighted convenience, and their silly beliefs in horoscopes, deities and crystals, and the resulting perceived cultural divisions, to even begin to remotely grasp what was at stake.

Two decades ago the Post Office was the UK's biggest mover of cash. In any given week about 80% of 'live' cash passed through a Post Office.

Thus, if ever the system of moving cash around collapsed (i.e. POLtd CViT vans stopped delivering), or if the DSS payments' systems went tits up, then Post Offices couldn't have 'paid out'. Analysis showed that within 3 days a state of National Emergency would have been called and the UK would have had the army deployed on the streets to stop the inevitable riots.

Forget the riots a few years ago... forget the May day smashing of McDonald's windows in Cannon Street... forget Brixton...forget Notting Hill...forget Keith Blakelock and Blair Peach... If something had gone wrong with the cash supply then we are talking about the very rapid elimination of cash supply in the UK. The fact it was kept so secret was because if the CWU (Communication Worker's Union) ever realised just what actual power they had at their fingertips (i.e. Cash in transit deliveries... and not the media 'headline-grabbing' strikes in Crown Post Offices, which were always irrelevant as by 1990 >95% of Post Office were run by private business people and wouldn't have ever gone on strike), then they'd have very easily bought the UK to its knees.

Hmmmh... Maybe they did know. In fact I have no doubt the Unions did...As all the UCW/CWU reps I ever met were utter selfish misogynistic sh*ts who cared not one iota about Customer Service or their non-male, White, Members... they were evidently only ever interested in maintaining the status quo and on a personal level only in how much time each week they could scam away from their 'paid duties' to sit at home on their (invariably) white, (invariably) male, (presumably spotty) arses! :0)

Anyway, by the late 90s a £1bn tri-partite (Gov/POLtd/DHSS) project was kicked off to automate the benefits/payments/personal data system in order to mitigate the risk of the "3 days and the Army will be needed" scenario.

Fujitsu won the contract and were guaranteed an income. However, it was found that the DSS couldn't automate themselves because (at the time) a worryingly high number of people had been allocated duplicate NIS numbers under the old manual system, and to fix the errors across many departments would have quickly blown the business case... and so the DHSS (i.e. UK Gov) pulled out.

Rather than admit to the error, very quickly, the Establishment serving press and media were deployed to start producing almost daily articles about 'Fraud'...'Benefits Gangs'... 'Nigerian Fraudsters'... 'DSS Council Estate scams'... etc. etc.

The public mood shifted. People started thinking that UK Gov should develop a solution...and so, conveniently, and not at all reported in the MSM, the Post Office was made to carry the can and overnight went from a profitable business, to one with a £1bn debt. The counter automation did little to combat fraud... but it looked good! ;P What mattered was that Fujitsu had been promised a £1bn contract as part of the tri-partite agreement and by jove they needed their guaranteed profit, (yep...the profit that had been negotiated and secured relentlessly in the boozey lunchtime strip-clubs of Clerkenwall, all dutifully charged to Fujitsu's plastic cards! ) ...and with the DHSS having to pull-out... the pseudo 'Public Sector' Post Office was the only available balance sheet on which to place the cost(s).

Presumably Eastenders and Corrie grabbed the headlines that year?... Maybe Top Gear started getting ratings?... Maybe even the price of 'Hundreds and Thousands' went up by a penny or two in the cake aisle at the local supermarket?... but what no one noticed was that a much loved 'cuddly-wuddly-social service', providing at the time over 20,000 Post Offices, suddenly had to underwrite Fujitsu's costs of a £1bn IT project.

The result?

The UK now has c.11,500 branches (many open for only a few hours). A decline of c.45% of a 'brand' that many (wealthy) people would think of as the epitome of a much loved Rural Britain (along with leafy lanes, the sound of leather on willow, lazy church services and village schools), and that many (unwealthy) people would think of as a once essential, readily accessible, social service.

To fund the £1bn debt was a charade of moving budgets around and of 'Government PR' saying they'd 'fix' the managerial incompetence of the Post Office and of Royal Mail Group. After some years £450 million of taxpayers money was found to enable HMG to say "We are great and we care and we will support Post Offices". But it was simply a roundabout way of hiding the UK Gov's ill-informed tri-partite commitment to Fujitsu that they then had renege on, (Oooh... I could tell you some tales about meetings that took place with the Treasury and the trade-offs between soldier's boots in Iraq, versus rural Post Office closures, versus likely voter reactions and the chances of Labour re-election!!... trust me, anyone that still thinks that their vote is remotely about 'democracy' or 'public services' or about 'priorities for tax paying citizens' should just stay in on Election Day and tune in to Gogglebox, or X-Factor, or TOWIE and stop pretending they have any clue whatsoever!)...

Anyway... to cut a long short short... that's when all your village POs started closing... and when your Town-Centre POs started being converted to 'Franchise' status.

BUT... What no Guardian or Independent media article ever grasped was that the main driver for automating and amalgamating all the respective databases and IT systems was the **fact** that POLtd was the UK's biggest 'mover' of cash and that was a worry... and so the headlines that said "we need automation so as we can pay directly into your bank account to combat fraud" or the headlines that said "Nigerian gangs pocket £1m" were simply tales circulated to get citizens to want, and even to demand, change...even though it effectively 'killed-off' having a local Post Office on every street corner and which in survey after survey, those very same citizens, had said epitomised 'Britain'.

The phrase "Boiling Frogs" springs to mind!

The "Use it or Lose it" campaign to keep local Post Offices open remains the biggest 'Public Mailbag' campaign to UK MPs and to the UK Government ever. Forget the NHS, forget the 1st Iraq war, forget anything else... the campaign against local PO closures during the 'Use it or Lose it' campaign (ironically funded by the UK Gov in a 'foot placed in mouth' inept, roundabout, way... but that's another story) resulted in the biggest correspondence campaign directed to UK MPs! Did it make any difference? No..."LOL!"

The point is...it mattered not one diddlysquat, (I even wrote a report for a Minister that he used as the backbone for his own speech, verbatim, in an address to the HoC). When money is involved, when drunken promises of 5yr profit targets are committed to private companies, then democracy and fairness and the public's expectation that their taxes fund 'value for money' services, is yesterday's claptrap.

So... (if anyone has bothered read this far!)... in a very convoluted way, I was simply trying to say "Don't believe anything you read in the MSM"... It's all, all, all serving a quite different agenda that m,ost people are oblivious to.

Yep... I accept this will be seen as ... but my point is 'Martin Smith' could be anyone, communicating for any reason, and with any agenda. If an individual paid contractor is on several £ks a day to promote/hide and agenda of HMG f*ck up (as A*** Consultants were used to play the 'game' of securing the £450k HMG payment for POLtd) then they are quite possibly capable of absolutely anything.

Knitted, you used to be Sonmi-451. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

by Knitted 27.02.15 6:55

aquila wrote:
Knitted wrote:[Snipped]
Knitted, you used to be Sonmi-451. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Yes...and your (some might say, 'patronising') point is what, exactly?

by Liz Eagles 27.02.15 7:00

Knitted wrote:
aquila wrote:
Knitted wrote:[Snipped]
Knitted, you used to be Sonmi-451. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Yes...and your (some might say, 'patronising') point is what, exactly?

I meant no offence, I just wondered why you stopped being Sonmi-451 to become Knitted and your last post was confusing to me. Nothing patronising.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 7:33

Knitted wrote:Yep... I accept this will be seen as ... but my point is 'Martin Smith' could be anyone, communicating for any reason, and with any agenda. If an individual paid contractor is on several £ks a day to promote/hide and agenda of HMG f*ck up (as A*** Consultants were used to play the 'game' of securing the £450k HMG payment for POLtd) then they are quite possibly capable of absolutely anything.

Wow! - that was a long preamble - but the key point you make in your last paragraph is well made.

Very little in this case can be taken at face value.

And that includes the claim of Martin Smith and two membersof his extended family of seeing a man carrying a pyjama-clad young girl...

...and an email from a gmail address to Richard Hall purporting to be from 'Martin Smith'

by Knitted 27.02.15 8:05

aquila wrote:
Knitted wrote:
aquila wrote:
Knitted wrote:[Snipped]
Knitted, you used to be Sonmi-451. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Yes...and your (some might say, 'patronising') point is what, exactly?
I meant no offence, I just wondered why you stopped being Sonmi-451 to become Knitted and your last post was confusing to me. Nothing patronising.

Wondered why my name changed? You could have PM'd me!?!?!

...Anyhow, it matters not and in answer I explained to Admin (proactively, and in response to a new thread about multiple IDs) that I change all my online IDs regularly and it had never, until then, crossed my mind that it would cause a problem... but after seeing the original thread comment I realised why it might on a forum such as this.

Yep... Sonmi-451... That's me and I'm very, very, proud of the constructive, practical, contribution I made many months ago relating to the 'Last photo' and the impossibility of the 'claimed' angles of the sun/shadows based upon trigonometry and astronomy (a bit of lifelong hobby of mine). Oh...and as someone who manipulates digital images for part of their income I am sorry if I fail to spot 'ghost dogs', 'false arms', 'impossible positions' in the McCann's images. As far as I'm concerned the Last Photo's Exif data is enough on it's own to 'invite' certain people before a court of their peers...

(n.b. I do not pray for anything, but would willingly dive to my knobbly knees if it meant GM/KH and the Tapas bunch might one day face their peers in an open court... pray2

)

Please accept my sincere apologies for (all) my previous waffle(s).

I didn't realise it would be dross. Sorry.

Let me explain...

(i) I read the words, in this thread, just a couple of postings back, that "Richard Hall published an e-mail purportedly sent to him by 'our' Martin Smith"
(ii) I simply, naively, thought I'd try and show (to 'guests', or those otherwise possibly also 'on the fence') that 'YES' not only postings by 'gmail accounts'... but also statements published in Hansard, by elected MPs, declaring (a decade ago) that £450million government decisions were in the public interest might not, actually, be!! ...And instead even enough cash to build a hospital was simply enough to part-plug a potential Fujitsu PPI loss, (Oooh the trips to Tokyo must have been such fun!...

Oh well...Sorry...I do accept I waffle.

I do accept I get wound up about things that may not be central to Madeleine. But what confuses me is there are other threads and other comments that go off on a tangent...and in anticipation of challenge to my posting I did make the effort to apologise in advance and use the "Off Topic" emoticon...

(If I'd had a PM saying I was talking sh*t I'd have had no qualms about deleting my thread contribution.... No drama, no feeding the shills, no denigration of the main cause which is justice for Madeleine... a simply 'delete' by "Yours Truly").

...I accept, and apologise, for my (undeniable) obsession with a "Wider Agenda" (such as my having to give oral to Ron Harrison... who was Headmaster of Wallington Grammar (the school attended previously by Nick Ross)...(Whose wife helped start Childline)... and that Fiona Bruce (taught by Ron Harrison, when he was at Haberdasher Aske's)... was the one that replaced Jill Dando (Nick's co-presenter)...

I shall try to keep off this forum from now on. I have given my personal email to a couple of people on here, (maybe even you as well?)...but will be more than happy to duck out (as I think I have said before... evidently unsuccessfully :D ) and will no longer contribute on anything unless someone PMs me to join in on something to do with photos/the Last Photo upon which subject my input may be remotely plausible to forum readers.

Sorry... but being a (heterosexual) 14yr old boy abused by my headmaster (Ron Harrison, of Wallington Grammar School for Boys) in his study (minutes after he mentioned a 'Christian Singer') I am a little bit fucked up. Apologies...and I accept this is not the forum to air my 'issues'.

Aquilla... I read this forum... I respect your analytical skills... I respect several others on here and I hate those that derail threads. I appreciate that I may come under that category. I try hard to not derail threads... I honestly do.

I'll (try my best) to keep to other forums in future where my tales are relevant... Sorry, but child abuse, corruption, and the 'Establishment' bring back many painful memories for me. I accept I become somewhat incoherent when topics ignite, at least for me, a (very) raw nerve.

I promise I will stop my 'off topic' contributions on this site.

What's important is justice for Madeleine... and airing my own baggage is quite inappropriate...and I acknowledge that unreservedly.

[Arrrgh... See... I'm waffling again! huh

]

*bows out and hopes you keep up the good work*

by **Tony Bennett** 27.02.15 9:14

Knitted wrote:
...I accept, and apologise, for my (undeniable) obsession with a "Wider Agenda" (such as my having to give oral to Ron Harrison...who was Headmaster of Wallington Grammar (the school attended previously by Nick Ross)...(Whose wife helped start Childline)...and that Fiona Bruce (taught by Ron Harrison, when he was at Haberdasher Aske's)...was the one that replaced Jill Dando (Nick's co-presenter)...

Sorry... but being a (heterosexual) 14yr old boy abused by my headmaster (Ron Harrison, of Wallington Grammar School for Boys) in his study (minutes after he mentioned a 'Christian Singer') I am a little bit fucked up. Apologies...and I accept this is not the forum to air my 'issues'.

What's important is justice for Madeleine...and airing my own baggage is quite inappropriate...and I acknowledge that unreservedly.

I don't think you've shared the above before in any of your usersnames here - and I would like to say: thank you very much for sharing. It can't be easy to do so.

One of the reasons I posted that daft comment from Hutton yesterday (where she said she didn't know if people like Savile and other celebs who abuse children should be sent to prison) is that it grossly underestimated the long-term harm that can be done by child sex abusers.

The names you have posted above are I'm sure of interest to many here...as are the shocking details emerging from Operation Fernbridge and Exaro News which 'Doug D' tirelessly and helpfully brings us here.

The scale of the cover-up of elite paedophile rings in this coutry is colossal. The powers of these callous and brutal abusers of young children are astonishing. Their network has successfully spiked dozens of investigations into it, even smothering police enquiries.

It was pondering why the government sent its top Media Adviser, Clarence Mitchell, to Portugal, that first really stimulated my deep interest in the case.

Why was it necessary to send out the Director of a 40-strong government media unit to Praia da Luz?

And by what process has the shaky story of the 'Smithman' sighting become the 'centre of the focus' of one of the most high-profile police investigations on the planet?

Can it be co-incidence that the bloke who produced the Smithman e-fits, as he boasted in a Sunday Times article on 27 October 2013, was the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5?

And - let's cut to the chase - what faces did he actually use to produce those two e-fits of quite different-looking men?

by logical 27.02.15 9:45

Tony ,
If the real Mr Martin Smith has/does take an interest in all you have wrote and keep writing about him and his family your Arse wiil be out the window dont you think ?

by Guest 27.02.15 10:37

logical wrote:Tony ,
If the real Mr Martin Smith has/does take an interest in all you have wrote and keep writing about him and his family your Arse wiil be out the window dont you think ?

They would have to prove that what Tony has said is incorrect.

Tony is backing everything he says up.

There are changes and contradictions.