The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.04.15 15:54

RICHARD HALL'S NEW 'PHANTOMS' FILM

Full 5-part video uploaded today by our member HideHo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU


Uploaded in 5 parts by 'De Tendresse':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlIYSmdwoC4 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNth4DnBqIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5dhiuRNRyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgtm5FFlejE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4hp6jp6E5U 


Uploaded in 5 parts by 'Trevor Owen':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgm_y5ZgtyA  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDKtpOOhAo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE9D8m0FlZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W38bEh4JGMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxa2pU3Loq0 


Synopsis

Not wanting to spoil this for anyone, but although it is 3 hours long, and backed up by a myriad of facts, I can summarise the contents as follows:

* Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner

* Her description matched that of a Polish man, Wojciech Krokowski

* Wojciech Krokowski was identified by Nuno Lourenco de Jesus as a bloke who allegedly tried to 'kiddnap' his daughter outside a ckae shop & cafe in Sagres on Sunday 29 April 2007

* Lourenco's tale was complete balderdash and another fabrication

* The Smiths' description of 'Smithman' matched those of Tannerman and Krokowski

* The Smiths may have acquired their description of 'Smithman' from Jane Tanner, a member of the McCann Team, or Robert Murat

* Goncalo Amaral and his colleagues were deceived, in turn, by what they believed at the time were genuine sightings

* DCI Redwood fabricated his account of 'Crecheman' on BBC's Crimewatch programme in front of 6.7 million viewers.


If correct, it's dynamite      bomb

   


____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14701
Reputation : 2834
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by waiting for justice on 18.04.15 22:56

Many thanks for the links. I wasn't sure when us non buyers would be able to view it.  ;-)

waiting for justice

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by BlueBag on 19.04.15 7:27

Crecheman has to be a fabrication.

Redwood offered no evidence that he is a real person and the tale involving still having the same clothes seems highly unlikely.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4358
Reputation : 2158
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Mark Willis on 19.04.15 7:38

Have watched all of Phantoms.
Sagres man...so interesting..
And Hall helps us regarding Murat and Smiths.
That is, it shows you how often we can be taken in by what appears to be "good news" on debunking the Mcs fables yet also shows that maybe Murat and the Smiths are not what you thought they were.

Personally I have always thought Murat is involved in this not by accident, by being a patsy, the fall guy.
I have always been suspicious of what he did whilst working with the PJ/Amaral..
The Smiths we all thought/think gave us a sighting of Gerry..
That is something you won't feel so assured of after watching Phantoms.

I think "trust nobody" is a handy maxim to deploy with anything in this case.
It seems no one involved in what happened in Luz can be trusted. Not one.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 277
Reputation : 94
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by waiting for justice on 19.04.15 9:06

It's great to have these four "suspects" broken down in this way and as others have said on the other similar thread, it is much easier to understand. Great work again. 

If real, Creche man perhaps didn't come forward but was more likely "if even existing" traced through the night creche records. I think the only key thing about Tanner man is to say that he did not exist as was suspected. (I would put my odds on Creche man not existing too but this is a good way of turning up the heat and sending the message that SY are discounting JT's statements) (IMO)). 
I would think that after looking at the statements, more ground breaking for SY would have been the fact they saw JT adding more detail to her statements as time went on, from a dark few seconds glimpse - why?

I wonder what Martin Smith is making of it all right now.

waiting for justice

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aiyoyo on 19.04.15 10:04

BlueBag wrote:Crecheman has to be a fabrication.

Redwood offered no evidence that he is a real person and the tale involving still having the same clothes seems highly unlikely.

The question has to be - why did Redwood (out of the blue) 2-1/2 years later into the investigation wish to focus on not one but two Smithmen that a CW programme was produced to appeal for info?

What could be reason for the delay in making the appeal? Was it because they chanced upon the e-fits late into the investigation (despite the Mcs claim they'd handed over years earlier)?


avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aquila on 19.04.15 10:07

I've just watched part III.

This production is excellent. There's a lot of information to take in and I find the re-capping to draw things together very helpful.

There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8612
Reputation : 1644
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by PeterMac on 19.04.15 10:34

aquila wrote:
There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.

Well quite. The scenario of the accidental death overnight 2/3, finding the body stiff and cold behind the sofa, removing into the blue tennis bag and leaving on the shelf for the dogs to alert to, taking the afternoon off for a ruptured Achilles tendon, taking the blue bag to * * * * * * * for storage, (less than 5 minutes by car / taxi) returning and setting up an alibi by playing tennis like a demon until late evening, . .
and so on
does not require Smithman to be anything other than a bloke carrying his daughter.
No conspiracies, no perjury, nothing made up, just a random bloke with a little girl.
Incidentally that could also apply to Tanerman, though we strongly suspect that he was totally fabricated.
Smithman must therefore have been a godsend, as it gave them a fall back position if Tannerman was eliminated. which of course he was, on Day 2, by Dr Amaral, and at all times subsequently
Then all they have to do it produce some "proof" that Madeleine was alive at some stage during 3/5/7 - like a photo with a conveniently altered date, for example, though it took 2 weeks for that to be finalised,
and ensure that no one else can say the family was MINUS Madeleine - by sending the entire group down to the Paraiso for the entire afternoon, first and last time, to do nothing very much except keep out of the way until the time when Madeleine would have been in the apartment
and so on


Just purporting, obviously !

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aiyoyo on 19.04.15 12:16

PeterMac wrote:

Smithman must therefore have been a godsend, as it gave them a fall back position if Tannerman was eliminated. which of course he was, on Day 2, by Dr Amaral, and at all times subsequently
Then all they have to do it produce some "proof" that Madeleine was alive at some stage during 3/5/7 - like a photo  with a conveniently altered date, for example, though it took 2 weeks for that to be finalised, and ensure that no one else can say the family was MINUS Madeleine - by sending the entire group down to the Paraiso for the entire afternoon, first and last time, to do nothing very much except keep out of the way until the time when Madeleine would have been in the apartment
and so on


Just purporting, obviously !

Makes perfect sense doesn't it, when there are too many first and last time activities on the 3rd.
In crime investigation police always look out for and look at change in routine, as that in itself is suspicious and red flag sign.

First and last time Kate did her own things in the morning - washed M's top to remove tea stain.
First and last time Gerry played tennis the whole blooming day not with his friends, not even with Kate.
First and last time Kate went jogging on the beach on her own
First and last time the Mcs did their own things, independent of each other, without their friends and without knowledge what their friends were doing.
First and last time their friends did things on their own, went sailing, went to the beach restaurant without checking with or informing Kate or Gerry.

What are the chances of that?  That none of the 6 (minus DK) had mentioned their day plan to Kate or Gerry, when they had been doing/sharing group activities every day up until 3rd?

Breaking away from group activity is not uncommon, but definitely not normal that this was not discussed or mentioned among them beforehand. Especially since they had been having dinner together night before. That's what normal people on group holiday do, they discuss next day activity plans during dinner.  Even if planning to do their own thing, they would exchange conversation and tell one another of their plan even if only in vague passing mention.  
It's not normal not to mention anything on a first time break away activity. Also not normal that neither side was curious to seek out the other side when they didn't see each other on that day.
They'd planned men's only tennis for that evening.  You'd think if that was discussed/planned ahead of time, there would have been mentions of the rest of the plans among them even if they were doing separate things.  ODD, very ODD.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aiyoyo on 19.04.15 12:43

aquila wrote:I've just watched part III.

This production is excellent. There's a lot of information to take in and I find the re-capping to draw things together very helpful.

There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.

Nuno Lourenco is a johnny come lately  do gooder who believed he was helping the Police with his belated over reaction to the Sagresman post Madeleine incident. Had the incident not occurred I doubt he'd have given Sagresman any more thoughts (despite what he said about the threat he perceived to his daughter) let alone have reported it.  That (the threat) was an after thought he perceived after Madeleine had been reported missing.  Which is unfortunate really, because his do gooder intention led PJ down the garden path on a wild goose chase, in a mistaken belief they were tracking down 'the' abductor.  That this sighting was believed by PJ, vigorously investigated and thoroughly followed up means the PJ were detracted at the time when they could have paid attention more closely on the Mccanns.  Just my opinion, obviously.

Question everything that is irregular or inconsistent. Why not? If it creates doubt, questioning doubt is perfectly valid.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Guest on 19.04.15 13:03

[quote="PeterMac"][quote="aquila"]
There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.[/quote]

Well quite.   The scenario of the accidental death overnight 2/3, finding the body stiff and cold behind the sofa, removing into the blue tennis bag and leaving on the shelf for the dogs to alert to, taking the afternoon off for a ruptured Achilles tendon,  taking the blue bag to * * * * * * *  for storage, (less than 5 minutes by car / taxi)  returning and setting up an alibi by playing tennis like a demon until late evening, . .
and so on
does not require Smithman to be anything other than a bloke carrying his daughter.
No conspiracies, no perjury, nothing made up, just a random bloke with a little girl.
Incidentally that could also apply to Tanerman, though we strongly suspect that he was totally fabricated.  
Smithman must therefore have been a godsend, as it gave them a fall back position if Tannerman was eliminated. which of course he was, on Day 2, by Dr Amaral, and at all times subsequently
Then all they have to do it produce some "proof" that Madeleine was alive at some stage during 3/5/7 - like a photo  with a conveniently altered date, for example, though it took 2 weeks for that to be finalised,
and ensure that no one else can say the family was MINUS Madeleine - by sending the entire group down to the Paraiso for the entire afternoon, first and last time, to do nothing very much except keep out of the way until the time when Madeleine would have been in the apartment
and so on


Just purporting, obviously ![/quote]

Very interesting PM

Last sentence: shouldn't that have read as: 'until the time when Madeleine would have been [i][b]out of[/b][/i] the apartment' ?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by PeterMac on 19.04.15 13:16

Portia wrote:
Very interesting PM
Last sentence: shouldn't that have read as: 'until the time when Madeleine would have been out of the apartment' ?


Just to clarify, I should have worded that as
"until the time when everyone else would have assumed that Madeleine was safely inside the apartment with her parents."
i.e. straight after "high tea", and just before the Tapas Group were released from their exile at the Paraiso, possibly by KM running past to give a time reference.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Guest on 19.04.15 13:18

[quote="PeterMac"][quote="Portia"]
Very interesting PM
Last sentence: shouldn't that have read as: 'until the time when Madeleine would have been [i][b]out of[/b][/i] the apartment' ?[/quote]


Just to clarify, I should have worded that as
[i]"until the time when everyone else [b]would have assumed that Madeleine was safely inside[/b] the apartment with her parents."
[/i]i.e. straight after "high tea", and just before the Tapas Group were released from their exile at the Paraiso, possibly by KM running past to give a time reference.[/quote]

Thank you, now it's clear to me
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aiyoyo on 19.04.15 13:44

Portia wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:
There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.

Well quite.   The scenario of the accidental death overnight 2/3, finding the body stiff and cold behind the sofa, removing into the blue tennis bag and leaving on the shelf for the dogs to alert to, taking the afternoon off for a ruptured Achilles tendon,  taking the blue bag to * * * * * * *  for storage, (less than 5 minutes by car / taxi)  returning and setting up an alibi by playing tennis like a demon until late evening, . .
and so on
does not require Smithman to be anything other than a bloke carrying his daughter.
No conspiracies, no perjury, nothing made up, just a random bloke with a little girl.
Incidentally that could also apply to Tanerman, though we strongly suspect that he was totally fabricated.  
Smithman must therefore have been a godsend, as it gave them a fall back position if Tannerman was eliminated. which of course he was, on Day 2, by Dr Amaral, and at all times subsequently
Then all they have to do it produce some "proof" that Madeleine was alive at some stage during 3/5/7 - like a photo  with a conveniently altered date, for example, though it took 2 weeks for that to be finalised,
and ensure that no one else can say the family was MINUS Madeleine - by sending the entire group down to the Paraiso for the entire afternoon, first and last time, to do nothing very much except keep out of the way until the time when Madeleine would have been in the apartment
and so on


Just purporting, obviously !

Very interesting PM

Last sentence: shouldn't that have read as: 'until the time when Madeleine would have been out of the apartment' ?

I think he meant "would have been in the apt" as in back in the apt after high tea on her own....without her friends...

If no one in the group says they'd seen her in the day, technically that would be correct, because they were doing separate things...that's the whole point of the change of routine.

ETA: crossed post. I see that PM had replied.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aiyoyo on 19.04.15 14:03

There are so many unanswered questions about the photos and the cameras.  
The dodgy behavior of the McCanns in not yielding up the camera...
the late output of the last photo...
etc enough inconsistencies regarding the subject for Richard to do a video on the subject.  Also why was the Olympus sent to Hampshire?  Who instructed that?
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by noddy100 on 19.04.15 19:20

I agree about crecheman being a fabrication as such is the state of the media and the insatiable appetite for real life 'stories' there is no way if he existed he wouldn't have been spread across the tabloids by now with a big fat cheque in his pocket!

noddy100

Posts : 700
Reputation : 37
Join date : 2013-05-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by AlexBG on 20.04.15 19:12

Watched all 5 parts of 'Phantoms' last night.
It was good, but the way in which the timelines were presented seemed hard to follow (such as the precise timing of each witness claim, the order in which they were made, and the particular circumstances surrounding them).
There also seemed to be some newspaper articles etc. quoted from which no obvious point was drawn; ie. there seemed to be no particular reason for quoting them.

Perhaps this is simply because I'm less familiar with the matters covered in 'Phantoms' than I am with those of the previous videos (which I thought were excellent).

AlexBG

Posts : 47
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-10-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by j.rob on 20.04.15 20:28

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:I've just watched part III.

This production is excellent. There's a lot of information to take in and I find the re-capping to draw things together very helpful.

There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.

Nuno Lourenco is a johnny come lately  do gooder who believed he was helping the Police with his belated over reaction to the Sagresman post Madeleine incident. Had the incident not occurred I doubt he'd have given Sagresman any more thoughts (despite what he said about the threat he perceived to his daughter) let alone have reported it.  That (the threat) was an after thought he perceived after Madeleine had been reported missing.  Which is unfortunate really, because his do gooder intention led PJ down the garden path on a wild goose chase, in a mistaken belief they were tracking down 'the' abductor.  That this sighting was believed by PJ, vigorously investigated and thoroughly followed up means the PJ were detracted at the time when they could have paid attention more closely on the Mccanns.  Just my opinion, obviously.

Question everything that is irregular or inconsistent.  Why not?  If it creates doubt, questioning doubt is perfectly valid.

I'm not so sure it is that straightforward. I suspect the Nuno 'sighting' in Sagres is bogus. And is connected to the media reports of the McCann's visit to Sagres - which the McCanns never wrote about themselves.

All very odd.



https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10199-fishing-with-a-yacht

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by aiyoyo on 20.04.15 21:50

j.rob wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:I've just watched part III.

This production is excellent. There's a lot of information to take in and I find the re-capping to draw things together very helpful.

There is no reason to believe any of the sightings imo. There is only reason to question them. I'm miffed as to why the Smith sighting seems to be accepted because 'they're a nice family from Ireland' and yet the general consensus on various social media platforms seems to completely dismiss all the other sightings in favour of the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time and is almost slaughtered for this fact.

Nuno Lourenco is a johnny come lately  do gooder who believed he was helping the Police with his belated over reaction to the Sagresman post Madeleine incident. Had the incident not occurred I doubt he'd have given Sagresman any more thoughts (despite what he said about the threat he perceived to his daughter) let alone have reported it.  That (the threat) was an after thought he perceived after Madeleine had been reported missing.  Which is unfortunate really, because his do gooder intention led PJ down the garden path on a wild goose chase, in a mistaken belief they were tracking down 'the' abductor.  That this sighting was believed by PJ, vigorously investigated and thoroughly followed up means the PJ were detracted at the time when they could have paid attention more closely on the Mccanns.  Just my opinion, obviously.

Question everything that is irregular or inconsistent.  Why not?  If it creates doubt, questioning doubt is perfectly valid.

I'm not so sure it is that straightforward. I suspect the Nuno 'sighting' in Sagres is bogus. And is connected to the media reports of the McCann's visit to Sagres - which the McCanns never wrote about themselves.

All very odd.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10199-fishing-with-a-yacht

Maybe you're right. But then one has got to ask why would he want to invent a bogus sighting?

He did provide a partial car number, and the Polish couple who in fact was in Sagres were traced by their rented car hire to their home town in Poland, before being eliminated.

Is it just coincident that the couple exist, who happened to there at the time he said they were, and were tracked down by the hire car they returned?

Even say his bogus sighting happens to coincide with the existence of a random couple being there is a freaky coincidence, it still does not explain why he would want to create a bogus sighting when there is no benefit in it for him.

Often Police received thousands of calls that require massive man hours to shift the wheat from chaffs because of do gooders who over react in retrospect on what they'd seen earlier and convinced themselves their sighting or info is going to help Police when they actually hamper Police works.

Maybe he was put up by Team McCann to sprout his nonsense, who knows, but I doubt it.

As for Mcs being in Sagres, that was definitely fabricated by team Mcs using Nuno's sighting to create the perfect illusion and fed to the Press.
As are all the rest of the subsequent pseudo sightings they fabricated to lend weight to their abduction story.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.04.15 22:39

REPLIES TO COMMENTS ON THE THREAD SO FAR


Mark Willis: "The Smiths we all thought/think gave us a sighting of Gerry...That is something you won't feel so assured of after watching Phantoms. I think "trust nobody" is a handy maxim to deploy with anything in this case. It seems no one involved in what happened in Luz can be trusted. Not one.

REPLY:  Yes, if we take Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann as two representative examples, they contradicted themselves on at least 20 evidential points regarding the alleged visit of Payne to Apartment G5A at around 6.30pm on 3 May. Most analysts of those contradictions would surely be driven to the obvious conclusion: this visit never happened. Thus how can one rely on one single thing that either of them has said about anything else? When analysing any witness statement in any case, the very first question one has to ask is: is this an honest witness doing her level best to recall the truth about what s/he did/saw/heard/knew?  

waiting for justice: "If real, Creche man perhaps didn't come forward but was more likely "if even existing" traced through the night creche records".

REPLY:  One obvious test of whether Crecheman was real or not is to ask why on earth, if he was on his own carrying a child outside G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May, he didn't speak up in the first few days or weeks. Then we have to explain why he was (if he exists) on his own (without the child's mother), with no buggy, and no covering for the child on a cold night early April night. After that, we need to know why he was not taking the shortest route home. What a fantastic advantage it is to have the taxpayer-funded BBC and taxpayer-funded Met Police pumping out this rubbish, more than 6 months in the preparation, to 6.7 million people - and have such control over the mainstream media that not one line is written in any one of them to query such a blatant fabrication    

aiyoyo: "The question has to be - why did Redwood (out of the blue) 2-1/2 years later into the investigation wish to focus on not one but two Smithmen that a CW programme was produced to appeal for info? What could be reason for the delay in making the appeal? Was it because they chanced upon the e-fits late into the investigation (despite the Mcs claim they'd handed over years earlier)?"

REPLY:  I think that both the McCanns and the Met Police have now confirmed that the McCanns, or a member of their Team, handed these e-fits to DCI Redwood between May and August 2011, at the start of Grange. So why weren't these two curious e-fits shown to the British public before 14 October 2013? Here is a suggestion.
1. Grange were limited to investigating 'the abduction'.
2. They needed to find the abductor.
3. They needed to widen the time frame for the abduction to occur.
4. They needed if possible to factor in the dogs' alerts into their final resolution of the case.
5. They had therefore to somehow eliminate Tannerman and thus 'move the clock for the abduction forward'. 
6. They needed to have Martin Smith on board, hence Redwood speaking to him twice, in 2012 and 2013. 
7. I suggest that before Grange was set up there was and is a high-level, top-secret group beavering away at how to promote the final resolution of the case to the British public. Sometime in late 2012, I suggest, they hit on the solution: blame it on Smithman. At this point the top-level group spoke to a top-level group at the BBC and said: 'Right, we need a prime time Crimewatch show to convince the public that Tannerman has been identified and that Smithman is the prime suspect'. The McCann Crimewatch McCann Special was the result. As some have suggested, the likeliest outcome will go something like this: "A burglar or paedophile entered G5A, killed Madeleine in a panic, then ran off with her bocy and was seen by the Smiths. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, and frustrated by a lack of full-hearted co-operation by the Portuguese Police, we've been unable to trace him".     

Aquila: "Smith sighting rings alarm bells just as any other and it wasn't hidden by the McCanns as Tony Bennett points out time after time..."

REPLY: Well, thank you for that. The McCann Team had gotten hold of the Smith sighting by December 2007, with the news that Brian Kennedy and his men were on their way to see the Smiths. Who knows what passed between Kennedy's men and the Smiths, but within the next few months top ex-MI5 man Henri Exton had got two e-fits, which are now claimed to be sketches created by two or three members of the Smiths family. It was so obvious how the McCann Team made active use of the Smiths' evidence from the 2009 'Mockumentary' onwards, and I could never understand how anyone could deny it. I was glad to see that Hall had brought out this element of the story so fully 

PeterMac: "[There is no reason ro think that] Smithman [is] anything other than a bloke carrying his daughter. No conspiracies, no perjury, nothing made up, just a random bloke with a little girl".

REPLY: Against that hypothesis is the issue as to why any bloke would be out on his own with his daughter - the mother not present - at 10.00pm, on a cold night, with no buggy, and no covering for his child. Then there's the fact that no-one else saw this father-with-child. And all that is before you even look at all the myriad questions swirling around the Smiths' statements and alleged creation of the efits, why they took 13 days to report their sighting, and so on   

aiyoyo: "Nuno Lourenco is a johnny come lately do gooder who believed he was helping the Police with his belated over reaction to the Sagresman post Madeleine incident. Had the incident not occurred I doubt he'd have given Sagresman any more thoughts (despite what he said about the threat he perceived to his daughter) let alone have reported it. That (the threat) was an after thought he perceived after Madeleine had been reported missing. Which is unfortunate really, because his do gooder intention led PJ down the garden path on a wild goose chase..."

REPLY: Well, this is one interpretation of what Lourenco did. You suggest his 'phone call to the PJ was 'a belated over reaction'. But look at it this way. Suppose down the beach you spot someone covertly taking pictures of young children. He then openly photographs not only your children but also two young children of his friend. Two hours later, outside a cake shop, he tries to snatch your three-year-old daughter. Do you not think that it was a gross under-reaction not to report these very disturbing events to the police immediately? Hall thinks he made the whole thing up. I agree. We know now that Sagresman was Wojciech Krokowski. I don't for one moment think that Krokowski, on a one-week holiday in Portugal, would have tried to snatch a child, do you? 

AlexBG: "...the way in which the timelines were presented seemed hard to follow (such as the precise timing of each witness claim, the order in which they were made, and the particular circumstances surrounding them). There also seemed to be some newspaper articles etc. quoted from which no obvious point was drawn; ie. there seemed to be no particular reason for quoting them".

REPLY: Just to explain, as best as I can, the relevant sequence of events:
3 May: Madeleine reported missing
4 May: Jane Tanner speaks of 'Tannerman'
5 May (early, just after Krokowski's plane to Berlin takes off): Nourenco 'phones PJ about 'Sagresman'
5 May: PJ team identifies Sagresman as Krokowski and sets up international police operation to intercept Krokowski's plane when it lands at Berlin Airport
======
The two newspaper articles that Hall mentions are I think from about 11 & 12 May 2007 when there was a rash of stories in the British media about the McCanns having been seen at Sagres beach on Sunday 29 April. The media, no doubt appropriately primed by someone, swallowed up the line that the paedophile allegedly seen at Sagres beach by Lourenco had also seen Madeleine - and resolved to abduct her (presumably following the McCanns back to Apartment G5A).  I would respectfully suggest that these stories were deliberately planted by those wishing to create a major diversion. They certainly succeeded.     

j.rob  "I suspect the Nuno 'sighting' in Sagres is bogus. And is connected to the media reports of the McCann's visit to Sagres - which the McCanns never wrote about themselves".

REPLY: Nuno 'sighting': bogus. McCanns' visit to Sagres: also bogus. But both false claims were very effective.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14701
Reputation : 2834
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.04.15 22:54

aiyoyo wrote:
Even say his bogus sighting happens to coincide with the existence of a random couple being there is a freaky coincidence, it still does not explain why he would want to create a bogus sighting when there is no benefit in it for him...Maybe he was put up by Team McCann to sprout his nonsense, who knows, but I doubt it.
I would argue that his entire tale is so preposterous as to positively cry out: 'Fabrication!'

The connection of the 'Lourenco sighting'/Sagresman/Krokowski to the Murat network in this area is surely something we must factor in, e.g.

1. Krokowski and his wife/partner staying in the Solimar apartment, built by Robert Murat's father  

2. Solimar apartment property maintenance service run by firm started by Robert Murat's father

3. Evidence about Krokowski's movements in Portugal that week provided by the head man at the Burgau beach bar, owned by Ralph & Sally Eveleigh, uncle & aunt of Robert Murat  

4. Hairs of the same haplotype as Jane Tanner and Robert Murat found in the Solimar apartment where Krokowski and his female companion were staying.


I would suggest that it is by no means impossible, for example, that Lourenco and Murat already knew each other.

Maybe Lourenco was told to lie to the PJ and make up a story identifying Krokowski as a paedophile?

Maybe Lourenco was paid to lie to the PJ and make up a story identifying Krokowski as a paedophile?

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14701
Reputation : 2834
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Mark Willis on 21.04.15 9:31

Tony Bennett wrote:REPLIES TO COMMENTS ON THE THREAD SO FAR


Mark Willis: "The Smiths we all thought/think gave us a sighting of Gerry...That is something you won't feel so assured of after watching Phantoms. I think "trust nobody" is a handy maxim to deploy with anything in this case. It seems no one involved in what happened in Luz can be trusted. Not one.

REPLY:  Yes, if we take Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann as two representative examples, they contradicted themselves on at least 20 evidential points regarding the alleged visit of Payne to Apartment G5A at around 6.30pm on 3 May. Most analysts of those contradictions would surely be driven to the obvious conclusion: this visit never happened. Thus how can one rely on one single thing that either of them has said about anything else? When analysing any witness statement in any case, the very first question one has to ask is: is this an honest witness doing her level best to recall the truth about what s/he did/saw/heard/knew?  
I agree. For a long time we believed that the Mcs neglected their kids by doing checks.
That is now considered a cover story to confess to a lesser crime obviating focus on the bigger one.
We have been "sold" the Smiths sighting as corroborative of someone seen carrying a child.
What? For 45 minutes? So...
We have seen how SY exonerates Tanner by supplying the fabricated Crecheman to expand the the time window to eradicate this 45 minutes. How fortuitous. Or rather, what a crock...
They must think we are as credulous as all hell.
My current thinking is that Murat is involved, no one saw anyone, and as usual, the Mcs are desperate to provide an independent witness to their fabled abduction nonsense.
The Mcs manipulate via themselves, Mitchell, Gamble, MSM, you name it. Given most of what we hear is sourced to the Mcs means none of it will be true.
avatar
Mark Willis

Posts : 277
Reputation : 94
Join date : 2014-05-14
Age : 62
Location : Beverley

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by HelenMeg on 21.04.15 10:06

Ref the contradictions from Payne and Kate regarding the evening visit that Payne allegedly made to the Mc Canns appartment on early evening 3rd May :  -

I dont conclude that the visit did not occur - but that it did occur and was potentially significant. One downplayed it and said it lasted a couple of minutes and the other did not. I think it is open to interpretation but neither scenario should be dismissed.

Seeing that it has been theorised that the girl is supposed to have died at around 6:30 that evening - this is a key time.  We have David Payne Kate and the children alone in the apartment at what may have been around time of death.  Certainly a reason for one of them to down play the length of David visit. 

If death had been earlier in the week then I would have hoped they could have managed to get this story straight in the planning stages.  This, for me, is one indication that death occurred on 3rd May, not before. I dont think it wise to dismiss the visit by David Payne as being fabrication.

ETA I think I have gone off at tangent on this thread topic - apologies

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by XTC on 21.04.15 23:20

Richard D Hall's videos are very very good.

Much more informative than Flanders and Swann's sorry tale in written form.

No could be? might be? straight to an opinion.

It's pretty straightforward that the Mccanns ( and the other 7 friends ) said they did not have access to a car that week.

Therefore how do you get to Sagres with Madeleine to be photographed by the Sagres man for future abduction?

Walking, bus or teleporting?

One distinctive description is uncanny in my view. JT's sighting and Sagres mans sighting - the hair. Very late sixties/seventies and almost
retro.

Also the common factor that ' He didn't look like  Tourist'

What does a non tourist look like?

He looks like a Foreigner in his own country- that's what he looks like to foreigners. A strange common denominator unless you are a Brit or maybe an Irish family.

The Madeleine was here doco showed the carriage of the child very similar to JT's way of viewing the way the child was being carried when she allegedly saw a man and a child. Across the arms- yet The Smiths say they couldn't say what the face of the man looked like because the carrier  was holding the child upright obscuring his face. Artistic licence perhaps from C$ or subtle advice?

The only slight criticism for myself was that Richard didn't ask two questions that DCI Redwood should have asked his Crecheman. 

Which is: One: How were you carrying your child - in which position?

Second: Did you see anyone else whilst you were doing it? i.e a woman in flip- flops and two blokes talking down the road?

One was '" phew " 5 metres away and the other two were discussing the ins and outs of the Jones's 20 metres away - near the gate.

Or were you to busy trying to balance a young child to notice anything? Or had selective deafness taken over?

Weirdest dismissal of a witness I've seen forsure.

Opinion though.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard Hall's 'PHANTOMS' video now uploaded to YouTube (18 Apr 2015)

Post by Guest on 22.04.15 10:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
The two newspaper articles that Hall mentions are I think from about 11 & 12 May 2007 when there was a rash of stories in the British media about the McCanns having been seen at Sagres beach on Sunday 29 April. The media, no doubt appropriately primed by someone, swallowed up the line that the paedophile allegedly seen at Sagres beach by Lourenco had also seen Madeleine - and resolved to abduct her (presumably following the McCanns back to Apartment G5A).  I would respectfully suggest that these stories were deliberately planted by those wishing to create a major diversion. They certainly succeeded.     

I think this is one of the most disturbing aspects of the story (and that's saying something) - the idea that Madeleine had some special quality that made her so attractive to a paedophile that he would go to great lengths to abduct her. Now, I'm not going to claim to know what makes such people tick, but I'm pretty sure that one three year old girl isn't somehow "sexier" than another (apologies, but that is the implication).

So, in my opinion, this suggestion says rather a lot about the people who would make it.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum