A bit more about Smithman

If unacceptable I apologize for dragging this over to the forum from another place also for polluting this thread but I was blooming annoyed when I read it just now.  Please delete if necessary!

On the subject of CEOP a particular 'expert' says: 

"I do hope that they're fully transparent about what went wrong, but whatever they say, I am certain that many people here will not believe it anyway.  Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits, but that didn't stop Tony from just carrying on claiming that OG was lying."

The vibes put out here are so familiar, someone using carefully manipulated semantics which in effect results in misinformation created by their own mischievous imagination to attack what they claim to be lies propagated by another, if you get my drift.  If anyone can point to where Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits I would be extremely grateful because I'm beggared if I've seen it.  Implication maybe but confirmation most definitely not.  Is it a case of repeat something often enough you might start to believe it yourself - or more to the point repeat it often enough and you might actually convince others that you are right?

Whichever, it's jolly bad form and very misleading to boot!  Rant over.

Verdi wrote:If unacceptable I apologize for dragging this over to the forum from another place also for polluting this thread but I was blooming annoyed when I read it just now.  Please delete if necessary!

On the subject of CEOP a particular 'expert' says: 

"I do hope that they're fully transparent about what went wrong, but whatever they say, I am certain that many people here will not believe it anyway.  Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits, but that didn't stop Tony from just carrying on claiming that OG was lying."

The vibes put out here are so familiar, someone using carefully manipulated semantics which in effect results in misinformation created by their own mischievous imagination to attack what they claim to be lies propagated by another, if you get my drift.  If anyone can point to where Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits I would be extremely grateful because I'm beggared if I've seen it.  Implication maybe but confirmation most definitely not.  Is it a case of repeat something often enough you might start to believe it yourself - or more to the point repeat it often enough and you might actually convince others that you are right?

Whichever, it's jolly bad form and very misleading to boot!  Rant over.

The gist was of it was correct but as far as I remember it was not Operation Grange, but a FOI reply to a question that someone (Tony I believe) asked.

Richard IV wrote:

Verdi wrote:If unacceptable I apologize for dragging this over to the forum from another place also for polluting this thread but I was blooming annoyed when I read it just now.  Please delete if necessary!

On the subject of CEOP a particular 'expert' says: 

"I do hope that they're fully transparent about what went wrong, but whatever they say, I am certain that many people here will not believe it anyway.  Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits, but that didn't stop Tony from just carrying on claiming that OG was lying."

The vibes put out here are so familiar, someone using carefully manipulated semantics which in effect results in misinformation created by their own mischievous imagination to attack what they claim to be lies propagated by another, if you get my drift.  If anyone can point to where Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits I would be extremely grateful because I'm beggared if I've seen it.  Implication maybe but confirmation most definitely not.  Is it a case of repeat something often enough you might start to believe it yourself - or more to the point repeat it often enough and you might actually convince others that you are right?

Whichever, it's jolly bad form and very misleading to boot!  Rant over.

The gist was of it was correct but as far as I remember it was not Operation Grange, but a FOI reply to a question that someone (Tony I believe) asked.

What has any of this to do with this specific thread that has been thrown open to guests as well as forum members to debate a specific matter?

Stop bitching (that's impolite terminology for stay on topic).

@ aquiila  -  "What has any of this to do with this specific thread that has been thrown open to guests as well as forum members to debate a specific matter?"

Nothing, hence my apology for polluting the thread.

Verdi wrote:If unacceptable I apologise for dragging this over to the forum from another place...but I was blooming annoyed when I read it just now. 

On the subject of CEOP a particular 'expert' says: 

"I do hope that they're fully transparent about what went wrong, but whatever they say, I am certain that many people here will not believe it anyway.  Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits, but that didn't stop Tony from just carrying on claiming that OG was lying."

If anyone can point to where Operation Grange confirmed that the Smith family made the e-fits I would be extremely grateful because I'm beggared if I've seen it... 

@ Verdi

Actually, the poster in the other place is dead right.

It was my FOI Act questions about Operation Grange and (a) the Summers and Swan book and (b) the 'Smithman' sighting that drew forth these two answers:

Question: Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

Met Police response: The programme was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

Met Police response: Yes they are the same man.

I also asked:

On what date were these two e-fits created?

On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation Grange?

On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or (b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail, letter or otherwise?

The Met Police declined to answer any of those questions.


For the record, I do not believe either of their two answers. For the record I do not believe their account of Crecheman is true either. Further, the purported reconstruction of the events of the evening of 3 May shown on BBC Crimewatch and prepared by Operation Grange officers was IMO also a travestry of the truth about that evening.

As this is definitely off-topic, the rest of the answers from the Metropolitan Police can be read on page 3 of this thread:

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

...which is in the 'Freedom of Information Requests' section of this forum

Have split Verdi's post from the Wayback/CEOP thread to keep that thread on topic.

I shall no doubt be hounded for raising an issue that's been flogged to death in the past but this is how I see the Smith sighting, simply without going into too much detail.

If the Smith family saw a stranger carrying a child through the streets of PdL around 10:00 pm on the night of 3rd May 2007, why didn't they report their sighting to the police directly they heard of MBMs disappearance?  OK, so it didn't immediately occur to them that the stranger they saw had any connection with MBMs disappearance (?) but at what stage did it suddenly dawn that it may have been the missing child being carried around the streets - after a family conference?

To go along with their story for the moment, when it occurred to one, two, three or all the family that the stranger could have been carrying MBM, wouldn't they have provided a full description of the stranger and his cargo to the police whilst it was still fresh in their minds?  As far as I'm aware there was no reported description of the stranger issued until Smith senior saw footage of the McCanns descending the steps of an aircraft in September 2007 (causing an internet frenzy) and then nothing until DCI Redwood's release of e-fits during the October 2013 Crimewatch production.

If the e-fit issued by DCI Redwood was genuinely drawn up with the cooperation of the Smith family why did it take over six years for the e-fits to be released into the public arena?  If they were created when the Smith family first reported the sighting, where have they been hiding for six years?  If they were created closer to October 2013, why did it take so long for the Smiths to be consulted by Operation Grange?  I don't go along with the Times report that claimed they had been concealed by Oakley International with full knowledge of the McCanns - that hint of skulduggery doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose.  The McCanns and their support network made a habit of engaging the services of dodgy private detectives so why does anyone believe Oakley International were operating an authentic investigation into MBMs disappearance, so thorough that their findings seriously implicated the parents?  The McCanns are hardly likely to employ detectives to investigate the McCanns are they?

More importantly, as the Smith family were able to provide a vague description of the strangers appearance, stature and clothing, why was that information not included in the e-fits?  Why only two gray-scale heads?

One of the reasons I can't be convinced that the Smith family sighting is genuine.  The disposal of Jane Tanner's sighting by DCI Redwood and his team is, in my opinion, nothing but a get-out for Tanner and the group that encouraged her claim and a convenient mode of extending the time scale to facilitate the phantom abductor.

Whether right or wrong one thing appears to be certain - the images issued by DCI Redwood haven't assisted any foreseeable conclusion to the case.