SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Page 2 of 4 • Share
Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Did the Smiths effectively become McCann supporters after January 2008?
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
TheTruthWillOut wrote:At the end of the day Tony, you have made your point/stance clear and I don't see why you need to keep going over and over the same ground.
REPLY: The 'Nine Phases of Smithman' IS new ground. I reverted to this specific issue of Martin Smith agreeing to change his witness statement - now saying the bloke he says he saw was 34-35 intsead of '40' in his police witness statement - because no-one seems to be able to counter this and other arguments of mine re Smithman. The level of argument overall on Smithman that I have encountered is along the lines of "The Smiths are decent, honourable people, I refuse to believe that any of them could lie", or "We must trust Operation Grane
You will either be proven right or wrong. Nobody knows the answer at this point.
I myself am still suspicious of Gerry's sunglasses in the last photo even accepting PeterMac's assurances from two experts. I have researched the issue over the years and can't see how it is right.
I haven't, however, felt the need to create 8 threads on the subject and repeat my thoughts.
REPLY: The comparison is hardly fair! Smithman is the admitted 'centre of Operation Grange's focus' and therefore MUST be a matter for the deepest possible interest on boards like this one. The moment Nicola Wall says that Gerry's sunglasses become 'the centre of Operation Grange's focus', I'll be interested in that subject as well. The Smithman threads attract great interest - hundreds of posts and not far off 100,000 views here so far. I doubt if a thread on Gerry's sunglasses could muster a similar response
I could be wrong and short of doing a reconstruction I can't see how I'll ever find the answer (or for it to matter in the case!). The sunglasses and camera are probably long gone either way.
I'm sure a lot of what is being posted and talked about here and at MMM is born out of frustration of no news from OG. To be honest though I take it over the terrible daily articles we got for so many years.
Bottom line is OG interviewed the Smiths twice and went on Crimewatch to ask the public who the man is. We are not privy to any developments in this yet and all we can do is wait.
I know, and understand why, a lot think cover-up in this case...I think more like cover my arse. I think there is a lot of difference between the two.
REPLY: Can you honestly account for all the following being involved in the search for Madeleine within days of her disappearance if this is not a state cover-up?
* The Head of Blair's Media Monitoring Unit
* Several officers from Leicesterhire Police
* A secret group of top government agencies set up on 8 May 2007 and co-ordinated and chaired by Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of Leicesteshire
* MI5
* Secret service/NCIS criminal profilers
* Control Risks Group
* Alex Woolfall and Bell Pottinger
* Alan Pike and colleagues from the Centre for Crisis Counselling in Skipton
* Chanellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister Gordon Brown
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
In the case of Jane Tanner, it was seriously and persistently argued by McCann-supporters that in the hands of expert psychologists, hypnotists or forensic artists etc. etc. that people's memory of events could be imroved or enhanced over time.Verdi wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:Next question: 'Would you not agree that memory recall is more likely to deteriorate with time rather than improve?'
Answer - No I do not agree. Initial statements are given in the heat of the moment. As time passes the witness has time to reflect and recall events with greater precision.
But only in the hands of true experts - like Brian Kennedy's hired hand, Melissa Little!i
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
And a nice attractive little incentive - like an offer she can't refuse!Tony Bennett wrote:In the case of Jane Tanner, it was seriously and persistently argued by McCann-supporters that in the hands of expert psychologists, hypnotists or forensic artists etc. etc. that people's memory of events could be imroved or enhanced over time.Verdi wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:Next question: 'Would you not agree that memory recall is more likely to deteriorate with time rather than improve?'
Answer - No I do not agree. Initial statements are given in the heat of the moment. As time passes the witness has time to reflect and recall events with greater precision.
But only in the hands of true experts - like Brian Kennedy's hired hand, Melissa Little!i
Guest- Guest
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Tony I doubt very much Smithman is the focus of OG - he's long gone! The people questioned by DCI Redwood and I think DCI Nicola Wall had no resemblance to Smithman. I would think they are concentrating on the evidence collected in Apt 5a, forensics and telephone use by the Tapas9.
Mo- Posts : 76
Activity : 82
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 69
Location : Nottinghamshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
I think it all hangs on this question:Mo wrote:Tony I doubt very much Smithman is the focus of OG - he's long gone! The people questioned by DCI Redwood and I think DCI Nicola Wall had no resemblance to Smithman. I would think they are concentrating on the evidence collected in Apt 5a, forensics and telephone use by the Tapas9.
Is Operation Grange:
(a) a wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth? - and was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 a sincere, bona fide effort by one of the Met's most brilliant detectives to attempt to find that man who really was carrying Madeleine towards the beach at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007?
OR
b) an expensive and deliberate charade designed all along simply to continue influence public perception that there really was an abduction, with the 6.7 million audience for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special forming the pinnacle of DCI Redwood's achievement of deceiving the public?
Or perhaps I could put the question another way.
Was Wendy Murphy: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Right or Wrong?
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Tony Bennett wrote:Can you honestly account for all the following being involved in the search for Madeleine within days of her disappearance if this is not a state cover-up?
* The Head of Blair's Media Monitoring Unit
* Several officers from Leicesterhire Police
* A secret group of top government agencies set up on 8 May 2007 and co-ordinated and chaired by Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of Leicesteshire
* MI5
* Secret service/NCIS criminal profilers
* Control Risks Group
* Alex Woolfall and Bell Pottinger
* Alan Pike and colleagues from the Centre for Crisis Counselling in Skipton
* Chanellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister Gordon Brown
I can take a wild guess?
Some of those in the list were initially genuine help after the McCanns/Tapas 7 called in favours from their seemingly long contact list. OC/MW probably brought in their own PR to cover their arse and may be that secret group was setup after realising they messed up. RM's quote fits nicely here.. "biggest f*ck up on this planet". John Buck, was he sent to PDL by downing street? or did he go there off his own back? Either way it created a big mess that had to be dealt with hence most in that list and CM etc.
So a cover up of the government mess up but I believe/hope OG is genuine. I'm just not completely confident they can crack it after so much time. Cases are hard enough when there isn't a government/political mess involved (see Claudia Lawrence case for e.g.)
I would really love to know what the views of the current Portuguese government/PJ are. I can't believe they would 1, entertain OG and 2, sit back passively whilst this complete cover-up was being executed?
Maybe I'm too wet behind the ears!?
TheTruthWillOut- Posts : 733
Activity : 754
Likes received : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Verdi Yesterday at 8:13 pm
{@=4599}guest12345{/@} wrote:d='4599' class='mentiontag' title='Viewing profile: guest12345'>@guest12345 wrote:[/mention] wrote:"Strange as it may seem, we have to rely on the Tapas 9 and staff from the Mark Warner complex,Ocean Club night creche and their statements of Truth as to Each others whereabouts on the 3/4 May 2007?
Dodgy to say the least,err,errrm, you know?"
...........................................................................................................................................
I think the reason the investigation is still on-going is because the statements cannot be relied on, therefore OG are having to work from the outside-in rather than inside-out.
Therefore wouldn't it be more sensible and/or profitable to start work inside-out by re-interviewing the main players?
You can't re-interview those already interviewed unless new information relating to them specifically has come to light. Also, any information they could get from the tapas group would be pretty worthless and would not stand up in court as so much has been fabricated/changed/covered up. This is why the focus has been on 3rd party/independent witnesses.
The statements of the Tapas 9 were very quickly deemed worthless due to the contradictions, certain agreed activities and the 'pact of silence' approach, all pointing to the fact that the information within them was fabricated/altered/ manufactured by some, or all of them.
Indeed the Tapas9 statements were/are worthless - even more reason to work inside-out by re-interviewing. The Metropolitan Police (Operation Grange) are a professional outfit aren't they?
Why bother wasting time and resources re-interviewing the tapas lot?? why waste time ans resources doing a reconstruction of utter rubbish, it's pointless, which is why it has not been done. Yes, they are a professional outfit, which is why they are not wasting their time on the tapas group. They know they weren't checking on their kids, they know the timeline for the supposed checks was to cover them etc. The only thing they would be interested in with the tapas group is who they saw around the complex and when and if any of that info lines up with independent witness statements. The focus of OG is not on the tapas group or the McCanns, so they are not the priority.
This is why IMO they haven't done a reconstruction... there's no point reconstructing false information, it's just wasting time. The only benefit to doing a reconstruction would be to highlight the fabrications to help eliminate certain times/scenarios, which is when the Tapas lot close up and refuse to do one. Non of them want to put themselves in a vulnerable position which could expose them all to child neglect charges.
The Tapas9 declined to participate in a reconstruction required by the Portuguese police not Operation Grange. By this time of course they were firmly ensconced back at blighty, without the cooperation of the whole group the exercise was futile. There was/is nothing to stop Operation Grange insisting on a reconstruction to highlight the inconsistencies in the original statements - the very reason for the Portuguese requirement. Question is why haven't they..
As above. No point re-constructing rubbish/fabrications. Waste of time.
I do however think that the OC staff and creche records are important.
Agreed! Maybe Operation Grange should also be re-interviewing them, after all they did take time out (at the tax payers expense) to swan off to Portugal in quest of various persons of no interest, yet it seems they have neglected key witness on their own doorstep.
As above, unless new evidence relating to those individuals or their statements comes to light, they cannot be re-interviewed. They can ask them kindly if they would provide more info, but they cannot force them. Who says the tapas group are the key witnesses? As far as OG are concerned they aren't, as they were sat getting drunk in the restaurant so saw nothing. The key witnesses are who saw activities around the complex...the outside-in.
guest12345- Posts : 81
Activity : 92
Likes received : 11
Join date : 2015-08-19
smithman 8
Hi Guest12345,
It seems as though your main thrust of the case is that no new evidence to the case has come to fruition as a reason not to/cannot question the Tapas group of friends on their previous statements,"even though they may be untruthful" Operation Grange has not re-questioned any of them, as DCI Andy Redwood can testify?
As Tony Bennett has stated for what reason would all these professional person's involvement to this case,be so pertinent unless it is to deception of the public, they hoped that through a passage of time, that it would be forgotten about "Time to move along on people"?
We are not talking about one person's demise in this case now,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,dossier of threats to the McCann family, as MSM,Sky, Martin **nt,Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,know all too well,"I'll put the Home Secretary on the Front page of the **um every day until the McCanns have a review of their case by the UK police,note not the Portugal PJ" and Government officials know,their murky finger prints are on all the documents,Home Secretaries from both Parties are complicit in the deception?
A certain phrase springs to mind from GA"They've not gone away you know"?
It seems as though your main thrust of the case is that no new evidence to the case has come to fruition as a reason not to/cannot question the Tapas group of friends on their previous statements,"even though they may be untruthful" Operation Grange has not re-questioned any of them, as DCI Andy Redwood can testify?
As Tony Bennett has stated for what reason would all these professional person's involvement to this case,be so pertinent unless it is to deception of the public, they hoped that through a passage of time, that it would be forgotten about "Time to move along on people"?
We are not talking about one person's demise in this case now,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,dossier of threats to the McCann family, as MSM,Sky, Martin **nt,Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,know all too well,"I'll put the Home Secretary on the Front page of the **um every day until the McCanns have a review of their case by the UK police,note not the Portugal PJ" and Government officials know,their murky finger prints are on all the documents,Home Secretaries from both Parties are complicit in the deception?
A certain phrase springs to mind from GA"They've not gone away you know"?
willowthewisp- Posts : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
Join date : 2015-05-07
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Hi Guest12345,
It seems as though your main thrust of the case is that no new evidence to the case has come to fruition as a reason not to/cannot question the Tapas group of friends on their previous statements,"even though they may be untruthful" Operation Grange has not re-questioned any of them, as DCI Andy Redwood can testify?
Correct. This is standard practice. They can ask them to assist, but they cannot force them to be re-interviewed unless there is new evidence. The tapas group have a pact of silence so would unlikely be volunteering to talk, as it would incriminate them on neglect charges. IMO OG would see no benefit in questioning them again as once a liar, always a liar. Nothing that they would/could say would stand up in court after cross examination.
As Tony Bennett has stated for what reason would all these professional person's involvement to this case,be so pertinent unless it is to deception of the public, they hoped that through a passage of time, that it would be forgotten about "Time to move along on people"?
Few reasons, but mainly...money. Everyone wins, media from stories, lawyers from court cases, McCanns from suing etc, police forces from getting funing allocated to pay for departments full of headcount, politicians getting publicity etc etc. Other reasons could be... intelligence held by certain agencies, damage limitation, connecting stories that need controlling into the public eye. IMO the only deception going on is with what OG and the media peddle to the public. The public want answers but OG can't give info on a live case, therefore i believe the majority of what is pushed out is just waffle/propaganda/made up, just to keep the public 'in the loop'.
We are not talking about one person's demise in this case now,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,dossier of threats to the McCann family, as MSM,Sky, Martin **nt,Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,know all too well,"I'll put the Home Secretary on the Front page of the **um every day until the McCanns have a review of their case by the UK police,note not the Portugal PJ" and Government officials know,their murky finger prints are on all the documents,Home Secretaries from both Parties are complicit in the deception?
I think the general consensus by the likes of Murdoch, gvt etc is that the McCanns are innocent and that the PJ made a complete hash of the investigation. Add to that the sheer amount of cash that the story brings to the Murdoch empire, then of course they will fight to keep the investigation going. Poor little Madeleine is a cash cow.
A certain phrase springs to mind from GA"They've not gone away you know"?
It seems as though your main thrust of the case is that no new evidence to the case has come to fruition as a reason not to/cannot question the Tapas group of friends on their previous statements,"even though they may be untruthful" Operation Grange has not re-questioned any of them, as DCI Andy Redwood can testify?
Correct. This is standard practice. They can ask them to assist, but they cannot force them to be re-interviewed unless there is new evidence. The tapas group have a pact of silence so would unlikely be volunteering to talk, as it would incriminate them on neglect charges. IMO OG would see no benefit in questioning them again as once a liar, always a liar. Nothing that they would/could say would stand up in court after cross examination.
As Tony Bennett has stated for what reason would all these professional person's involvement to this case,be so pertinent unless it is to deception of the public, they hoped that through a passage of time, that it would be forgotten about "Time to move along on people"?
Few reasons, but mainly...money. Everyone wins, media from stories, lawyers from court cases, McCanns from suing etc, police forces from getting funing allocated to pay for departments full of headcount, politicians getting publicity etc etc. Other reasons could be... intelligence held by certain agencies, damage limitation, connecting stories that need controlling into the public eye. IMO the only deception going on is with what OG and the media peddle to the public. The public want answers but OG can't give info on a live case, therefore i believe the majority of what is pushed out is just waffle/propaganda/made up, just to keep the public 'in the loop'.
We are not talking about one person's demise in this case now,Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,dossier of threats to the McCann family, as MSM,Sky, Martin **nt,Rupert Murdoch,Rebekah Brooks,know all too well,"I'll put the Home Secretary on the Front page of the **um every day until the McCanns have a review of their case by the UK police,note not the Portugal PJ" and Government officials know,their murky finger prints are on all the documents,Home Secretaries from both Parties are complicit in the deception?
I think the general consensus by the likes of Murdoch, gvt etc is that the McCanns are innocent and that the PJ made a complete hash of the investigation. Add to that the sheer amount of cash that the story brings to the Murdoch empire, then of course they will fight to keep the investigation going. Poor little Madeleine is a cash cow.
A certain phrase springs to mind from GA"They've not gone away you know"?
guest12345- Posts : 81
Activity : 92
Likes received : 11
Join date : 2015-08-19
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Tony Bennett wrote:I think it all hangs on this question:Mo wrote:Tony I doubt very much Smithman is the focus of OG - he's long gone! The people questioned by DCI Redwood and I think DCI Nicola Wall had no resemblance to Smithman. I would think they are concentrating on the evidence collected in Apt 5a, forensics and telephone use by the Tapas9.
Is Operation Grange:
(a) a wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth? - and was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 a sincere, bona fide effort by one of the Met's most brilliant detectives to attempt to find that man who really was carrying Madeleine towards the beach at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007?
Tony back in 2011/12 there are threads on this forum and others stating Jane Tanner fabricated her evidence and was not truthful about Tannerman - Operation Grange felt the same and disposed of him on Crimewatch in front of over 6 million people watching. ABDUCTOR NUMBER 1 DISPOSED OF!
Only a week or two ago TTWO (I think) posted some information about how Crimewatch works behind the scenes - which fits in nicely with what DCI Redwood did with the e-fits. I hope TTWO posts the information up again:
Smithman
As you have stated Brian Kennedy hired Melissa Little to put the e-fits together which I might add did GM no favours whatsoever. The McCanns have sat on these e-fits for god knows how long and then they were passed to Operation Grange (not sure if this was by the McCanns or their PI's).
Operation Grange also sat on these e-fits for a number of months, why? because they have no relevance. I can imagine before the program went live, DCI Redwood informing the Control Room taking the calls from the public that they would be inundated with calls. What did people on the forums think of them? Well from what I've read some people think it's GM, some say it could be anybody, some say one of them or both look like somebody who lives down their road - and that is what Operation Grange think. ABDUCTION NUMBER 2 DISPOSED OF. What was telling was the way the Mc's looked frightened really frightened and that will not have gone unnoticed!
Snr Amaral stated in his book that there was an accident and the little girl died in the apartment
Sir Bernard Hogen-Howe said something along the lines of the or that dead girl
DCI Redwood has stated she may have died in the apartmen 5a
THE DOGS -
and what was encouraging was the support given to Snr Amaral by the MPS on the Gofundme. It takes a lot of officers to donate £1000!
This why Jane Tanner's and the Smith family sightings have no relevance.
OR
b) an expensive and deliberate charade designed all along simply to continue influence public perception that there really was an abduction, with the 6.7 million audience for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special forming the pinnacle of DCI Redwood's achievement of deceiving the public?
Or perhaps I could put the question another way.
Was Wendy Murphy: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Right or Wrong?
This was Wendy Murphy's opinion which many other people have an opinion - the unfortunate thing is they talked over each other which I found irritating! WM could be right it probably was a PR exercise but the police do have to be good at PR see:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mo- Posts : 76
Activity : 82
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 69
Location : Nottinghamshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
here you go Mo: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
TheTruthWillOut- Posts : 733
Activity : 754
Likes received : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26
Mo- Posts : 76
Activity : 82
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 69
Location : Nottinghamshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Tony Bennett wrote:
I think it all hangs on this question:
Is Operation Grange:
(a) a wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth? - and was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013 a sincere, bona fide effort by one of the Met's most brilliant detectives to attempt to find that man who really was carrying Madeleine towards the beach at about 10.00pm on 3 May 2007?
For me the answer lies in these questions:
- Who was it that "persuaded" (blackmailed) the Prime Minister to set up Operation Grange?
- Who is the one (and probably only) person to have benefitted from the setting up of Operation Grange?
Once this
Rebekah Brooks blackmailed the Prime Minister, how do we know that she didn't also blackmail a few dodgy cops at NSY? We know that they exist, even Theresa May admitted to this.
How can an investigation set up purely to satisfy the needs of a corrupt and glorified journalist be a genuine and wholehearted, no-holds-barred, ruthless search for the truth?
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
@ Mo - reference your post up the thread, where you wrote this (your post in blue, my replies in black):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tony back in 2011/12 there are threads on this forum and others stating Jane Tanner fabricated her evidence and was not truthful about Tannerman - Operation Grange felt the same and disposed of him on Crimewatch in front of over 6 million people watching. ABDUCTOR NUMBER 1 DISPOSED OF!
REPLY: Yes, Crimewatch/Redwood said that Tannerman was no abductor. In fact he was Crecheman! One fabrication replaced by another one in the opinion of many, myself included. But what a masterstroke by Redwood (if you believed him):
1. Jane Tanner rescued as an honest witness
2. More time to invent an abductor: 9.10pm to 10.00pm - 50 minutes - instead of the 5-minute window for the abduction given by Tanner's sighting.
Only a week or two ago TTWO (I think) posted some information about how Crimewatch works behind the scenes - which fits in nicely with what DCI Redwood did with the e-fits.
REPLY: Hmmm, maybe they do 'work behind the scenes', as you put it. But this was different.
Was the acted reconstruction anything like a true reconstruction of that evening's events - IMO, NO.
Did Crecheman ever exist? - a man who kept silent for 6 years? Highly unlikely IMO.
Were those e-fits really produced by the Smiths? - The evidence is very strongly against it IMO.
No, on this occasion, Crimewatch appears to have been engaged in mass deception.
Smithman
As you have stated Brian Kennedy hired Melissa Little to put the e-fits together
REPLY AND CORRECTION: Brian Kennedy called in Melissa Little to do (A) the sketch of Tannerman and, later (B) the sketch of 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man' (NOTW, January 2008). Brian Kennedy called in those two rogues Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton to arrange for the e-fits to be produced.
which I might add did GM no favours whatsoever.
The McCanns have sat on these e-fits for god knows how long and then they were passed to Operation Grange (not sure if this was by the McCanns or their PI's).
REPLY: This is the history of the e-fits from what we have been told:
1. Produced in spring/summer 2008 by Henri Exton
2. Passed by the McCanns to both the PJ and Leicestershire Police 'by October 2009' (McCanns' words)
3. No action on the e-fits by either the private PIs, Leicestershire Police or the PJ
4. R-fits handed to Operation Grange spring 2011 by the McCanns, just after OG was set up
5. No action on the e-fits by Grange until Crimewatch Special, well over two years later.
If your case is that 'the McCanns sat on the e-fits', you would also need to explain why OG sat on them for some two and a half years (may 2011 to October 2013).
Operation Grange also sat on these e-fits for a number of months, why?
REPLY: Two years and 5 months, see above
because they have no relevance.
REPLY: Yet Redwood told the nation that they were 'the centre of our focus' and urged his British audience of 6.7 million to help find him
I can imagine before the program went live, DCI Redwood informing the Control Room taking the calls from the public that they would be inundated with calls. What did people on the forums think of them? Well from what I've read some people think it's GM, some say it could be anybody, some say one of them or both look like somebody who lives down their road - and that is what Operation Grange think. ABDUCTION NUMBER 2 DISPOSED OF. What was telling was the way the Mc's looked frightened really frightened and that will not have gone unnoticed!
REPLY: Sorry, Mo, I don't buy any of that one bit. A number of people have made great play of Gerry looking 'frightened', allegedly because one of the two e-fits projected above him looks like him. I understood in fact that that image was photoshopped. Even if it wasn't, OK, Gerry McCann looked tense that evening. If you look again in detail at my OP and see how the McCanns have systematically made use of the Smithman sighting since January 2008, even taking the liberty of altering Martin Smith's statement to make the age of the man he said he saw 34-35 instead of what he told the police: 40 - you'll surely understand that the McCanns have nothing to fear from Smithman.
The McCanns had been promoting Smithman for nearly five years before the Crimewatch programme. What a good 'break' for them when Redwood (cough) 'found' Crecheman and in effect told the McCanns: 'Right, we've found Crecheman, now at last we can make good use of that Smithman sighting you've been promoting for the past five years. And we have another 45 minutes for the abduction to take place!'
Snr Amaral stated in his book that there was an accident and the little girl died in the apartment
REPLY: Slightly different, he said he had NO EVIDENCE that her presumed death in the apartment was anything other than an accident supposed.
Sir Bernard Hogen-Howe said something along the lines of the or that dead girl
DCI Redwood has stated she may have died in the apartmen 5a
REPLY: Yes, both are IMO helping the public to prepare for the eventual 'revelation' that the abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment o and then ran off with her dead body.
THE DOGS -
and what was encouraging was the support given to Snr Amaral by the MPS on the Gofundme. It takes a lot of officers to donate £1000!
REPLY: That means nothing if this is a massive cover-up led by the nation's top politicians
This why Jane Tanner's and the Smith family sightings have no relevance.
REPLY: As I said above, the Smithman sighting is of massive relevance. The BBC together with Operation Grange achieved their goal of influencing public perception. It was a masterstroke:
1. Jane Tanner rescued as an honest witness
2. More time to invent an abductor: 9.10pm to 10.00pm - 50 minutes - instead of the 5-minute window for the abduction given by Tanner's sighting
3. A credible abductor - Smithman.
As I don't have a telly, I watched the Crimewatch McCann Special with a couple on my estate. Those three things are exactly what they both believed. Job done! And into the bargain they both thought what a marvellous job the Met Police had done!!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - This was Wendy Murphy's opinion which many other people have an opinion - the unfortunate thing is they talked over each other which I found irritating!
REPLY: There is a verbatim transcript of that interview on this forum.
WM could be right it probably was a PR exercise but the police do have to be good at PR see:
REPLY: Back to my point about the couple on my estate. They believed the BBC and Redwood. They saw nothing amiss with what they thought was a genuine reconstruction of the night's events. They were mightily impressed that Crecheman had been 'found'. They were sure that the Irish family really did see a man walking towards the beach at 10.00pm carrying Madeleine. And so on. Most of the other 6.7 million viewers would have thought exactly the same.
This is a case where the media men and propagandists have had a field day, from Mitchell to Brunt, from Bell Pottinger to the BBC, from Rebekah Brooks to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Andy Coulson - all these and a clutch of other PR types have held most of the country spellbound.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tony back in 2011/12 there are threads on this forum and others stating Jane Tanner fabricated her evidence and was not truthful about Tannerman - Operation Grange felt the same and disposed of him on Crimewatch in front of over 6 million people watching. ABDUCTOR NUMBER 1 DISPOSED OF!
REPLY: Yes, Crimewatch/Redwood said that Tannerman was no abductor. In fact he was Crecheman! One fabrication replaced by another one in the opinion of many, myself included. But what a masterstroke by Redwood (if you believed him):
1. Jane Tanner rescued as an honest witness
2. More time to invent an abductor: 9.10pm to 10.00pm - 50 minutes - instead of the 5-minute window for the abduction given by Tanner's sighting.
Only a week or two ago TTWO (I think) posted some information about how Crimewatch works behind the scenes - which fits in nicely with what DCI Redwood did with the e-fits.
REPLY: Hmmm, maybe they do 'work behind the scenes', as you put it. But this was different.
Was the acted reconstruction anything like a true reconstruction of that evening's events - IMO, NO.
Did Crecheman ever exist? - a man who kept silent for 6 years? Highly unlikely IMO.
Were those e-fits really produced by the Smiths? - The evidence is very strongly against it IMO.
No, on this occasion, Crimewatch appears to have been engaged in mass deception.
Smithman
As you have stated Brian Kennedy hired Melissa Little to put the e-fits together
REPLY AND CORRECTION: Brian Kennedy called in Melissa Little to do (A) the sketch of Tannerman and, later (B) the sketch of 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man' (NOTW, January 2008). Brian Kennedy called in those two rogues Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton to arrange for the e-fits to be produced.
which I might add did GM no favours whatsoever.
The McCanns have sat on these e-fits for god knows how long and then they were passed to Operation Grange (not sure if this was by the McCanns or their PI's).
REPLY: This is the history of the e-fits from what we have been told:
1. Produced in spring/summer 2008 by Henri Exton
2. Passed by the McCanns to both the PJ and Leicestershire Police 'by October 2009' (McCanns' words)
3. No action on the e-fits by either the private PIs, Leicestershire Police or the PJ
4. R-fits handed to Operation Grange spring 2011 by the McCanns, just after OG was set up
5. No action on the e-fits by Grange until Crimewatch Special, well over two years later.
If your case is that 'the McCanns sat on the e-fits', you would also need to explain why OG sat on them for some two and a half years (may 2011 to October 2013).
Operation Grange also sat on these e-fits for a number of months, why?
REPLY: Two years and 5 months, see above
because they have no relevance.
REPLY: Yet Redwood told the nation that they were 'the centre of our focus' and urged his British audience of 6.7 million to help find him
I can imagine before the program went live, DCI Redwood informing the Control Room taking the calls from the public that they would be inundated with calls. What did people on the forums think of them? Well from what I've read some people think it's GM, some say it could be anybody, some say one of them or both look like somebody who lives down their road - and that is what Operation Grange think. ABDUCTION NUMBER 2 DISPOSED OF. What was telling was the way the Mc's looked frightened really frightened and that will not have gone unnoticed!
REPLY: Sorry, Mo, I don't buy any of that one bit. A number of people have made great play of Gerry looking 'frightened', allegedly because one of the two e-fits projected above him looks like him. I understood in fact that that image was photoshopped. Even if it wasn't, OK, Gerry McCann looked tense that evening. If you look again in detail at my OP and see how the McCanns have systematically made use of the Smithman sighting since January 2008, even taking the liberty of altering Martin Smith's statement to make the age of the man he said he saw 34-35 instead of what he told the police: 40 - you'll surely understand that the McCanns have nothing to fear from Smithman.
The McCanns had been promoting Smithman for nearly five years before the Crimewatch programme. What a good 'break' for them when Redwood (cough) 'found' Crecheman and in effect told the McCanns: 'Right, we've found Crecheman, now at last we can make good use of that Smithman sighting you've been promoting for the past five years. And we have another 45 minutes for the abduction to take place!'
Snr Amaral stated in his book that there was an accident and the little girl died in the apartment
REPLY: Slightly different, he said he had NO EVIDENCE that her presumed death in the apartment was anything other than an accident supposed.
Sir Bernard Hogen-Howe said something along the lines of the or that dead girl
DCI Redwood has stated she may have died in the apartmen 5a
REPLY: Yes, both are IMO helping the public to prepare for the eventual 'revelation' that the abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment o and then ran off with her dead body.
THE DOGS -
and what was encouraging was the support given to Snr Amaral by the MPS on the Gofundme. It takes a lot of officers to donate £1000!
REPLY: That means nothing if this is a massive cover-up led by the nation's top politicians
This why Jane Tanner's and the Smith family sightings have no relevance.
REPLY: As I said above, the Smithman sighting is of massive relevance. The BBC together with Operation Grange achieved their goal of influencing public perception. It was a masterstroke:
1. Jane Tanner rescued as an honest witness
2. More time to invent an abductor: 9.10pm to 10.00pm - 50 minutes - instead of the 5-minute window for the abduction given by Tanner's sighting
3. A credible abductor - Smithman.
As I don't have a telly, I watched the Crimewatch McCann Special with a couple on my estate. Those three things are exactly what they both believed. Job done! And into the bargain they both thought what a marvellous job the Met Police had done!!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - This was Wendy Murphy's opinion which many other people have an opinion - the unfortunate thing is they talked over each other which I found irritating!
REPLY: There is a verbatim transcript of that interview on this forum.
WM could be right it probably was a PR exercise but the police do have to be good at PR see:
REPLY: Back to my point about the couple on my estate. They believed the BBC and Redwood. They saw nothing amiss with what they thought was a genuine reconstruction of the night's events. They were mightily impressed that Crecheman had been 'found'. They were sure that the Irish family really did see a man walking towards the beach at 10.00pm carrying Madeleine. And so on. Most of the other 6.7 million viewers would have thought exactly the same.
This is a case where the media men and propagandists have had a field day, from Mitchell to Brunt, from Bell Pottinger to the BBC, from Rebekah Brooks to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Andy Coulson - all these and a clutch of other PR types have held most of the country spellbound.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Smithman 8
Hi Mr Bennett (Tony),
I wish to applaud the time and effort you have dedicated to this forum and finding out the truth of what happened to Madeleine Mccann on 3 May 2007 in apartment 5 a Ocean Club Apartment.
Your latest post describes as to what a farcical production Crime Watch was to the public in October 2013 as a deception to indicate a reason to the public that Madeleine McCann was "abducted by as yet an unknown person(s)"?
It is rather amazing that the supposed group of friends who were the last people possibly to have seen an a live Madeleine,"a pact of silence"produced duplicity accounts of what happened and there whereabouts and not take part in a reconstruction in Portugal, but then chose to take part in Dave Edgars production/reconstruction of 3 May 2007, were GMc decides on which side of the road he was when Jane Tanner states the opposite, then has an "Emotional moment", was this the truth sinking in of what they had taken part in?
In fact do you think that Crime Watch may have been used in the last eight years to facilitate some persons perception on the case by having a some what closer relationship on the facts of the case and should have used the PJ files and the statements taken from the Tapas friends, staff from Mark Warner/Ocean Club staff of there wherabouts?
It is quite clear there is a cover up and I suppose the only alternative would be a public inquiry but there is no likelihood of that when we will have "Operation Grange" to decipher first, if and when they decide to conclude, maybe after the defamation trial involving Mr Goncalo Amaral?
I wish to applaud the time and effort you have dedicated to this forum and finding out the truth of what happened to Madeleine Mccann on 3 May 2007 in apartment 5 a Ocean Club Apartment.
Your latest post describes as to what a farcical production Crime Watch was to the public in October 2013 as a deception to indicate a reason to the public that Madeleine McCann was "abducted by as yet an unknown person(s)"?
It is rather amazing that the supposed group of friends who were the last people possibly to have seen an a live Madeleine,"a pact of silence"produced duplicity accounts of what happened and there whereabouts and not take part in a reconstruction in Portugal, but then chose to take part in Dave Edgars production/reconstruction of 3 May 2007, were GMc decides on which side of the road he was when Jane Tanner states the opposite, then has an "Emotional moment", was this the truth sinking in of what they had taken part in?
In fact do you think that Crime Watch may have been used in the last eight years to facilitate some persons perception on the case by having a some what closer relationship on the facts of the case and should have used the PJ files and the statements taken from the Tapas friends, staff from Mark Warner/Ocean Club staff of there wherabouts?
It is quite clear there is a cover up and I suppose the only alternative would be a public inquiry but there is no likelihood of that when we will have "Operation Grange" to decipher first, if and when they decide to conclude, maybe after the defamation trial involving Mr Goncalo Amaral?
willowthewisp- Posts : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
Join date : 2015-05-07
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
TB
I also applaud the work you have done in respect of finding the Truth in the disappearance of Madeleine and other cases discussed on the Forum.
I quote one of your replies to Mo:
"This is a case where the media men and propagandists have had a field day, from Mitchell to Brunt, from Bell Pottinger to the BBC, from Rebekah Brooks to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Andy Coulson - all these and a clutch of other PR types have held most of the country spellbound."
But what of the Met. I always thought they were corrupt. But to produce CrimeWatch and have DCI Redwood deceive the people in such a way is atrocious.
I have even lost the respect of local Police Forces to the extent that I don't expect them to attend when called to local crime unless it's good for their PR.
I also applaud the work you have done in respect of finding the Truth in the disappearance of Madeleine and other cases discussed on the Forum.
I quote one of your replies to Mo:
"This is a case where the media men and propagandists have had a field day, from Mitchell to Brunt, from Bell Pottinger to the BBC, from Rebekah Brooks to the Prime Minister's Director of Communications, Andy Coulson - all these and a clutch of other PR types have held most of the country spellbound."
But what of the Met. I always thought they were corrupt. But to produce CrimeWatch and have DCI Redwood deceive the people in such a way is atrocious.
I have even lost the respect of local Police Forces to the extent that I don't expect them to attend when called to local crime unless it's good for their PR.
____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique- Posts : 1396
Activity : 1460
Likes received : 42
Join date : 2010-10-19
Smithman
I think another reason that Andy Redwood finally promoted the Smithman sighting was to reinforce the 'fact' that the abduction happened on the evening of the 3rd. It was a gamble all round with Smithman looking so like Gerry ( and in my opinion not unlike the Redwood himself! ) but one worth taking to lay a completely false trail on the actual date of the disappearance. It's ridiculous to believe that the so called abduction could have happened on the evening of the 3rd ..................so much to do in so little time. If MBM had died on the 3rd, logic dictates that they would have chosen the following evening as the abduction evening to allow them to do all the necessary planning to create the scenario. IMO the constant comings and goings of they and their friends from tables to various apartments on the evening of the 3rd. was just an act to promote the idea that they were doing regular checks.
kaz- Posts : 596
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 413
Join date : 2014-08-18
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
This illuminating correspondence between Johanna Renstein (Unterdenteppichgekehrt) and David James Smith, Times journalist, from 2011, has just been re-published elsewhere. I add it here because of the last sentence, which is relevant to our discussions about 'Smithman'.
Apart from that, the correspondence is noteworthy (a) for two very good points made and sustained by Johanna in an exemplary, courteous manner - and (b) for the contemptuous way the arrogant bighead - that David James Smith clearly is - dismisses her points. The rage with which he replies to her is almost disturbing, as if somehow he is personally involved in the whole case in a way we don't yet know?
,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A conversation with the press, 08 July 2011 Unterdenteppichgekehrt and David James Smith
Friday 8 July 2011 at 15:38
Article in Question: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Johanna to DJS:
Dear Mr. Smith,
In your article “Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears”, from 16th December 2007, you mention this fact: “Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner had brought a monitor too, but theirs wasn’t getting much of a signal from the Tapas restaurant 50 yards away.”
The couple never mentioned to the PJ that they brought a monitor as well, in all their statements they claim that the Paynes were the only ones with a baby monitor. Only in April 2008, in the rogatory interviews conducted by Leicestershire Police, this piece of information appeared. It might seem a small omission, but in the light of possible neglect charges, would have been important. Jane Tanner claims in the rogatory interview that she brought it with her in the evenings and positioned it on a ledge/wall behind her. This was NEVER mentioned to portuguese Police as the released statements show. The question I have is, how did you get this info before the rogatory interviews even took place? I know you have to protect sources, but this seems a very strange inside knowledge.
Thank you in advance.
Kind regards
DJS to Johanna
Who are you and what is your interest in this case?
David
Johanna to DJS
I am sorry if I have upset you… Well I gave my name, I am from Germany and I am interested in the case. Since the files have been released I have been trying to build myself an opinion based solely on facts and no spin. I am in the possession of the DVD with the released case files and have spent a lot of time with their analysis. That is why I came upon this rather curious discrepancy regarding the baby monitor. There was a meeting of the McCanns and their friends in Rothley in November, and in December your article was published with this “new” fact. I am just curious where it suddenly came from.
Regards
DJS to Johanna
No i am not upset. I just don’t to fuel the web ghouls (i have no idea whether you are one of them or not…) who seem obsessed with what i consider to be the grotesque idea that the mccanns or their friends did away with madeleine. In addition to the further distress it must cause the mccanns and their friends on top of the devastating event that started it, I just feel it is a complete waste of time and energy. That said, however, I had a long briefing with Gerry McCann before I wrote my article and I guess the baby monitor info came from him. I am aware that many discrepancies arose in the portuguese statements through misunderstandings of language. And you ought to be aware that there will always be minor discrepancies of fact in statements – failings of memory, interpretation and so on – which are not in themselves sinister or suspicious.
One skill of good policing is sifting the wheat from the chaff and knowing what matters and what doesn’t. I strongly suspect the baby monitor issue lies in the latter category. As you will gather, I have every sympathy with the McCanns and no sympathy with those who want to play amateur detective in public on the net with no apparent consideration for the McCanns’ feelings.
I respect facts.
Rant over…
David
Johanna to DJS
Dear David,
thank you for the information about your source regarding the baby monitor. Allow me to add my 2c to the rest of your mail.
Last time I checked, the case was not solved, Madeleine had not turned up, and no evidence of an abduction had emerged. If you are content with the current status quo that is your prerogative, but I am of the opinion that the death or disappearance of a 3-year old girl should not simply be shelved after only a couple of months. To label all those that want explanations as ghouls is a preferred method of the media, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell to discredit and ridicule a thinking minority that is in the possession of the casefiles. To ask questions is and should stay allowed in the light of so many discrepancies that were revealed with the release of the police files. The emotional blackmail, that those questions “add to the distress of the parents” is just an additional way to stop these questions.
I agree with you that the added fact of a second baby monitor, that never got mentioned in Portugal, is not important enough to change the course of an investigation that is no longer open. Still it was deliberately added and even “translation issues” cannot conceal the fact, that it was never mentioned to the Portuguese Police. The fact that the information was given to you by the then “Arguido” Gerald McCann, published without confirmation, does not instil confidence in the rest of the article.
But since you are of the opinion that sifting the wheat from the chaff is up to the police you are excused for not questioning the details. I know I won’t be granted another reply after my rant, but there is one question that I wanted to raise with a proper journalist for ages.
The evidence of the Smith family from Ireland would have been the perfect “proof” for an abduction. A man carrying a “sleeping” girl towards the rocky beach via dark roads. Between June (when the article was published for the first time in the Drogheda Independent) and September (when Mr. Smith suddenly realised the man might have been Gerry McCann) it would have enforced the abduction theory immensely. But this evidence was never used, neither by the McCanns nor by the british press. No mention of it anywhere. While hundreds of sightings poured in from all over the world, this one sighting was never mentioned. Why?
Have a nice Sunday
DJS to Johanna
No, I won’t let you get away with that. You are asking me to endorse or tolerate a world in which interfering outsiders blunder around misinterpeting snippets of information and re-presenting them as suspicious facts, in reality half-facts. I do broadly think it is the job of the police to investigate crimes. Those are the people we appoint to do it on our behalf.
The media’s role is to examine, challenge and sometimes investigate too. I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices formed on the basis of…of what? Television appearances? How the McCanns appear to be? Most of those opinions about them were formed long before the case file was released. There is also a sad desire to give weight to conspiracy theories.
On the basis of the hard established facts of the case – the way in which the characters’ lives intersect that evening, after Madeleine was last seen by anyone else – how many people would have to have known and been involved in the mccanns’ self-abducting or killing their own child? The police always start with motive. Every crime has a motive. What would be the motive and what could be so great a motive it involved all that group of people and was capable of being seemingly indefinitely concealed. What do you think, they were all paedophiles? Sex game enthusiasts? Child traffickers? Or merely agreed that pretending an abduction had been committed was the best way of disguising an accidental calpol overdose?
Come on, get real. Find something useful to do – go and campaign against war crimes in rwanda or something – and leave those poor people in peace. That is not emotional blackmail it is a recognition of their loss and an acceptance of the reality that not a single plausible suspicious shred about them has emerged in all the months since.
All those delusional sites devoted to conspiracy theories about the mccanns are kind of repugnant.
I can’t remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.
David
Apart from that, the correspondence is noteworthy (a) for two very good points made and sustained by Johanna in an exemplary, courteous manner - and (b) for the contemptuous way the arrogant bighead - that David James Smith clearly is - dismisses her points. The rage with which he replies to her is almost disturbing, as if somehow he is personally involved in the whole case in a way we don't yet know?
,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A conversation with the press, 08 July 2011 Unterdenteppichgekehrt and David James Smith
Friday 8 July 2011 at 15:38
Article in Question: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Johanna to DJS:
Dear Mr. Smith,
In your article “Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears”, from 16th December 2007, you mention this fact: “Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner had brought a monitor too, but theirs wasn’t getting much of a signal from the Tapas restaurant 50 yards away.”
The couple never mentioned to the PJ that they brought a monitor as well, in all their statements they claim that the Paynes were the only ones with a baby monitor. Only in April 2008, in the rogatory interviews conducted by Leicestershire Police, this piece of information appeared. It might seem a small omission, but in the light of possible neglect charges, would have been important. Jane Tanner claims in the rogatory interview that she brought it with her in the evenings and positioned it on a ledge/wall behind her. This was NEVER mentioned to portuguese Police as the released statements show. The question I have is, how did you get this info before the rogatory interviews even took place? I know you have to protect sources, but this seems a very strange inside knowledge.
Thank you in advance.
Kind regards
DJS to Johanna
Who are you and what is your interest in this case?
David
Johanna to DJS
I am sorry if I have upset you… Well I gave my name, I am from Germany and I am interested in the case. Since the files have been released I have been trying to build myself an opinion based solely on facts and no spin. I am in the possession of the DVD with the released case files and have spent a lot of time with their analysis. That is why I came upon this rather curious discrepancy regarding the baby monitor. There was a meeting of the McCanns and their friends in Rothley in November, and in December your article was published with this “new” fact. I am just curious where it suddenly came from.
Regards
DJS to Johanna
No i am not upset. I just don’t to fuel the web ghouls (i have no idea whether you are one of them or not…) who seem obsessed with what i consider to be the grotesque idea that the mccanns or their friends did away with madeleine. In addition to the further distress it must cause the mccanns and their friends on top of the devastating event that started it, I just feel it is a complete waste of time and energy. That said, however, I had a long briefing with Gerry McCann before I wrote my article and I guess the baby monitor info came from him. I am aware that many discrepancies arose in the portuguese statements through misunderstandings of language. And you ought to be aware that there will always be minor discrepancies of fact in statements – failings of memory, interpretation and so on – which are not in themselves sinister or suspicious.
One skill of good policing is sifting the wheat from the chaff and knowing what matters and what doesn’t. I strongly suspect the baby monitor issue lies in the latter category. As you will gather, I have every sympathy with the McCanns and no sympathy with those who want to play amateur detective in public on the net with no apparent consideration for the McCanns’ feelings.
I respect facts.
Rant over…
David
Johanna to DJS
Dear David,
thank you for the information about your source regarding the baby monitor. Allow me to add my 2c to the rest of your mail.
Last time I checked, the case was not solved, Madeleine had not turned up, and no evidence of an abduction had emerged. If you are content with the current status quo that is your prerogative, but I am of the opinion that the death or disappearance of a 3-year old girl should not simply be shelved after only a couple of months. To label all those that want explanations as ghouls is a preferred method of the media, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell to discredit and ridicule a thinking minority that is in the possession of the casefiles. To ask questions is and should stay allowed in the light of so many discrepancies that were revealed with the release of the police files. The emotional blackmail, that those questions “add to the distress of the parents” is just an additional way to stop these questions.
I agree with you that the added fact of a second baby monitor, that never got mentioned in Portugal, is not important enough to change the course of an investigation that is no longer open. Still it was deliberately added and even “translation issues” cannot conceal the fact, that it was never mentioned to the Portuguese Police. The fact that the information was given to you by the then “Arguido” Gerald McCann, published without confirmation, does not instil confidence in the rest of the article.
But since you are of the opinion that sifting the wheat from the chaff is up to the police you are excused for not questioning the details. I know I won’t be granted another reply after my rant, but there is one question that I wanted to raise with a proper journalist for ages.
The evidence of the Smith family from Ireland would have been the perfect “proof” for an abduction. A man carrying a “sleeping” girl towards the rocky beach via dark roads. Between June (when the article was published for the first time in the Drogheda Independent) and September (when Mr. Smith suddenly realised the man might have been Gerry McCann) it would have enforced the abduction theory immensely. But this evidence was never used, neither by the McCanns nor by the british press. No mention of it anywhere. While hundreds of sightings poured in from all over the world, this one sighting was never mentioned. Why?
Have a nice Sunday
DJS to Johanna
No, I won’t let you get away with that. You are asking me to endorse or tolerate a world in which interfering outsiders blunder around misinterpeting snippets of information and re-presenting them as suspicious facts, in reality half-facts. I do broadly think it is the job of the police to investigate crimes. Those are the people we appoint to do it on our behalf.
The media’s role is to examine, challenge and sometimes investigate too. I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices formed on the basis of…of what? Television appearances? How the McCanns appear to be? Most of those opinions about them were formed long before the case file was released. There is also a sad desire to give weight to conspiracy theories.
On the basis of the hard established facts of the case – the way in which the characters’ lives intersect that evening, after Madeleine was last seen by anyone else – how many people would have to have known and been involved in the mccanns’ self-abducting or killing their own child? The police always start with motive. Every crime has a motive. What would be the motive and what could be so great a motive it involved all that group of people and was capable of being seemingly indefinitely concealed. What do you think, they were all paedophiles? Sex game enthusiasts? Child traffickers? Or merely agreed that pretending an abduction had been committed was the best way of disguising an accidental calpol overdose?
Come on, get real. Find something useful to do – go and campaign against war crimes in rwanda or something – and leave those poor people in peace. That is not emotional blackmail it is a recognition of their loss and an acceptance of the reality that not a single plausible suspicious shred about them has emerged in all the months since.
All those delusional sites devoted to conspiracy theories about the mccanns are kind of repugnant.
I can’t remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.
David
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
WOW! I've not seen that before. What an utterly amazing correspondence! There was Johanna being polite and on the ball, and D Smith being pompous, astoundingly rude about those who question the official version of Madeleine's disappearance (online ghouls), oddly extremely angry, and incredibly head-in-sand for someone supposedly a reporter (obviously not an investigative one) on a serious newspaper.
comperedna- Posts : 709
Activity : 781
Likes received : 56
Join date : 2012-10-29
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Thankyou Tony for posting that exchange of correspondence. It is trully mindblowing. I have just done a quick bit of research about David James Smith. he is approx 60 with a lifetime in journalism and writing. His area of expertise is economics and he has awards in the business/economics area. he has published books on well known criminal cases like Jamie Bulger, Jill Dando, Crippen.
The exchange of emails printed above was in 2011 after the book Madeleine was published so this was available for him to compare with earlier material.
How an experienced journalist writing for a quality paper who has also written non fiction books involving serious research come decide that there are no unanswered questions about the madeleine McCann case and that the poor parents are being unfairly targeted by internet ghouls with nothing better to do is quite beyond me. It is very very depressing.
The exchange of emails printed above was in 2011 after the book Madeleine was published so this was available for him to compare with earlier material.
How an experienced journalist writing for a quality paper who has also written non fiction books involving serious research come decide that there are no unanswered questions about the madeleine McCann case and that the poor parents are being unfairly targeted by internet ghouls with nothing better to do is quite beyond me. It is very very depressing.
woodpecker- Posts : 53
Activity : 80
Likes received : 27
Join date : 2014-10-09
Smithman 8
Perhaps David James Smith of the Times, was as smitten as DCI Andy Redwood was in the wafting scented fragrance coming from such a saintly pair?
"Nothing to see hear, move along now, Evening All", not good police work by Leicestershire Police, call me Stu?
"Nothing to see hear, move along now, Evening All", not good police work by Leicestershire Police, call me Stu?
willowthewisp- Posts : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
Join date : 2015-05-07
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
notlongnow- Posts : 482
Activity : 541
Likes received : 47
Join date : 2013-10-16
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Sounds just like the standard McCann apologist spiel. This is just classic..Tony Bennett wrote:This illuminating correspondence between Johanna Renstein (Unterdenteppichgekehrt) and David James Smith, Times journalist, from 2011, has just been re-published elsewhere. I add it here because of the last sentence, which is relevant to our discussions about 'Smithman'.
Apart from that, the correspondence is noteworthy (a) for two very good points made and sustained by Johanna in an exemplary, courteous manner - and (b) for the contemptuous way the arrogant bighead - that David James Smith clearly is - dismisses her points. The rage with which he replies to her is almost disturbing, as if somehow he is personally involved in the whole case in a way we don't yet know?
,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A conversation with the press, 08 July 2011 Unterdenteppichgekehrt and David James Smith
Friday 8 July 2011 at 15:38
Article in Question: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Johanna to DJS:
Dear Mr. Smith,
In your article “Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears”, from 16th December 2007, you mention this fact: “Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner had brought a monitor too, but theirs wasn’t getting much of a signal from the Tapas restaurant 50 yards away.”
The couple never mentioned to the PJ that they brought a monitor as well, in all their statements they claim that the Paynes were the only ones with a baby monitor. Only in April 2008, in the rogatory interviews conducted by Leicestershire Police, this piece of information appeared. It might seem a small omission, but in the light of possible neglect charges, would have been important. Jane Tanner claims in the rogatory interview that she brought it with her in the evenings and positioned it on a ledge/wall behind her. This was NEVER mentioned to portuguese Police as the released statements show. The question I have is, how did you get this info before the rogatory interviews even took place? I know you have to protect sources, but this seems a very strange inside knowledge.
Thank you in advance.
Kind regards
DJS to Johanna
Who are you and what is your interest in this case?
David
Johanna to DJS
I am sorry if I have upset you… Well I gave my name, I am from Germany and I am interested in the case. Since the files have been released I have been trying to build myself an opinion based solely on facts and no spin. I am in the possession of the DVD with the released case files and have spent a lot of time with their analysis. That is why I came upon this rather curious discrepancy regarding the baby monitor. There was a meeting of the McCanns and their friends in Rothley in November, and in December your article was published with this “new” fact. I am just curious where it suddenly came from.
Regards
DJS to Johanna
No i am not upset. I just don’t to fuel the web ghouls (i have no idea whether you are one of them or not…) who seem obsessed with what i consider to be the grotesque idea that the mccanns or their friends did away with madeleine. In addition to the further distress it must cause the mccanns and their friends on top of the devastating event that started it, I just feel it is a complete waste of time and energy. That said, however, I had a long briefing with Gerry McCann before I wrote my article and I guess the baby monitor info came from him. I am aware that many discrepancies arose in the portuguese statements through misunderstandings of language. And you ought to be aware that there will always be minor discrepancies of fact in statements – failings of memory, interpretation and so on – which are not in themselves sinister or suspicious.
One skill of good policing is sifting the wheat from the chaff and knowing what matters and what doesn’t. I strongly suspect the baby monitor issue lies in the latter category. As you will gather, I have every sympathy with the McCanns and no sympathy with those who want to play amateur detective in public on the net with no apparent consideration for the McCanns’ feelings.
I respect facts.
Rant over…
David
Johanna to DJS
Dear David,
thank you for the information about your source regarding the baby monitor. Allow me to add my 2c to the rest of your mail.
Last time I checked, the case was not solved, Madeleine had not turned up, and no evidence of an abduction had emerged. If you are content with the current status quo that is your prerogative, but I am of the opinion that the death or disappearance of a 3-year old girl should not simply be shelved after only a couple of months. To label all those that want explanations as ghouls is a preferred method of the media, the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell to discredit and ridicule a thinking minority that is in the possession of the casefiles. To ask questions is and should stay allowed in the light of so many discrepancies that were revealed with the release of the police files. The emotional blackmail, that those questions “add to the distress of the parents” is just an additional way to stop these questions.
I agree with you that the added fact of a second baby monitor, that never got mentioned in Portugal, is not important enough to change the course of an investigation that is no longer open. Still it was deliberately added and even “translation issues” cannot conceal the fact, that it was never mentioned to the Portuguese Police. The fact that the information was given to you by the then “Arguido” Gerald McCann, published without confirmation, does not instil confidence in the rest of the article.
But since you are of the opinion that sifting the wheat from the chaff is up to the police you are excused for not questioning the details. I know I won’t be granted another reply after my rant, but there is one question that I wanted to raise with a proper journalist for ages.
The evidence of the Smith family from Ireland would have been the perfect “proof” for an abduction. A man carrying a “sleeping” girl towards the rocky beach via dark roads. Between June (when the article was published for the first time in the Drogheda Independent) and September (when Mr. Smith suddenly realised the man might have been Gerry McCann) it would have enforced the abduction theory immensely. But this evidence was never used, neither by the McCanns nor by the british press. No mention of it anywhere. While hundreds of sightings poured in from all over the world, this one sighting was never mentioned. Why?
Have a nice Sunday
DJS to Johanna
No, I won’t let you get away with that. You are asking me to endorse or tolerate a world in which interfering outsiders blunder around misinterpeting snippets of information and re-presenting them as suspicious facts, in reality half-facts. I do broadly think it is the job of the police to investigate crimes. Those are the people we appoint to do it on our behalf.
The media’s role is to examine, challenge and sometimes investigate too. I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices formed on the basis of…of what? Television appearances? How the McCanns appear to be? Most of those opinions about them were formed long before the case file was released. There is also a sad desire to give weight to conspiracy theories.
On the basis of the hard established facts of the case – the way in which the characters’ lives intersect that evening, after Madeleine was last seen by anyone else – how many people would have to have known and been involved in the mccanns’ self-abducting or killing their own child? The police always start with motive. Every crime has a motive. What would be the motive and what could be so great a motive it involved all that group of people and was capable of being seemingly indefinitely concealed. What do you think, they were all paedophiles? Sex game enthusiasts? Child traffickers? Or merely agreed that pretending an abduction had been committed was the best way of disguising an accidental calpol overdose?
Come on, get real. Find something useful to do – go and campaign against war crimes in rwanda or something – and leave those poor people in peace. That is not emotional blackmail it is a recognition of their loss and an acceptance of the reality that not a single plausible suspicious shred about them has emerged in all the months since.
All those delusional sites devoted to conspiracy theories about the mccanns are kind of repugnant.
I can’t remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.
David
"The media’s role is to examine, challenge and sometimes investigate too. I think those web ghouls are driven by prejudices formed on the basis of…of what?.."
So what exactly is it you are doing Meester David - apart from committing an act of gross indecency? I thought the primary function of the media, in terms of the press as in a Times journalist, is to report - unless taking on the role of a investigative journalist. Is that what you are doing Meester David? If so, I seriously suggest you consult the official documentation relating to the case and not base your judgement on hearsay and the word of the prime suspects and their heavy mobsters playing backstage.
Has this geezer signed the hypocritical oath?
Who owns the Times anyway, now let me think - is it Rupert Murdoch? Just shows how ill advised he was/is, can't remember the detail about the Smith sighting yet here he is purporting to examine, challenge and (sometimes) investigate? Bah!
I've been looking at mccannfiles.com for the Times report that Carole Tranmer was reading in bed on Sunday 6th May 2007. Quite sickening to read the numerous reports in the first few days when the investigation was but an embryo. If this clown wants to talk of prejudice - look no further!
Guest- Guest
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
I posted yesterday about David James Smith in too much hurry and included some information about another journalist with the same name. How careful we should be when the name is Smith!!! The reference I made to economic expertise and awards for business/economics writing were the wrong journalist Smith.
Below some more info about the work the correct David James Smith has done which strengthen my earlier (tho flawed) post about why such an experienced journalist would believe absolutely the Mccann story.
He specialises in investigative feature articles and books:
From 2008 onwards he has covered the following:
Lindsay Hawker murder in Tokyo
Two teachers children in harrow Middlesex murdering the other
jersey childcare scandal Haut de la garenne
Jeremy Bamber case - he murdered his family
Claudia Laurence case
Manchester Murder Squad - he spent time with them
the 9/11 'jumpers'
Jamie Bulger's killer
Murder in the French alps where two small children lost their parents and grandmother
Rogue policeman Ali Dizaei
His book on Nelson Mandela - New York Times said the book gave a fresh point of view on this 'modern day saint.'
he won the UK Feature Writer of the year in 2011 and 2012.
I am even more baffled today than yesterday as to why he responded so negatively to Johanna's very polite emails. You would expect that with his background he would be looking at the McCann case with an open mind and not afraid to question the abduction story - as he has apparently raised issues about Mandela which have not pleased some.
Below some more info about the work the correct David James Smith has done which strengthen my earlier (tho flawed) post about why such an experienced journalist would believe absolutely the Mccann story.
He specialises in investigative feature articles and books:
From 2008 onwards he has covered the following:
Lindsay Hawker murder in Tokyo
Two teachers children in harrow Middlesex murdering the other
jersey childcare scandal Haut de la garenne
Jeremy Bamber case - he murdered his family
Claudia Laurence case
Manchester Murder Squad - he spent time with them
the 9/11 'jumpers'
Jamie Bulger's killer
Murder in the French alps where two small children lost their parents and grandmother
Rogue policeman Ali Dizaei
His book on Nelson Mandela - New York Times said the book gave a fresh point of view on this 'modern day saint.'
he won the UK Feature Writer of the year in 2011 and 2012.
I am even more baffled today than yesterday as to why he responded so negatively to Johanna's very polite emails. You would expect that with his background he would be looking at the McCann case with an open mind and not afraid to question the abduction story - as he has apparently raised issues about Mandela which have not pleased some.
woodpecker- Posts : 53
Activity : 80
Likes received : 27
Join date : 2014-10-09
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
''..................... interfering outsiders .................'' So that's what we , who seek the truth and justice are! By implication then, HE is an 'insider.' No more to be said.
I can't remember where I saw it but it was on here very recently and did strike me as odd. The person who joked to Diane Webster about being left alone in the Tapas bar on the 3rd also mentions baby monitorS.
( QUOTE) ) can’t remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.
Quickly established by whom one might ask ?
I can't remember where I saw it but it was on here very recently and did strike me as odd. The person who joked to Diane Webster about being left alone in the Tapas bar on the 3rd also mentions baby monitorS.
( QUOTE) ) can’t remember the detail of the smith sighting but surely it was quickly established it was not reliable or significant.
Quickly established by whom one might ask ?
kaz- Posts : 596
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 413
Join date : 2014-08-18
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS (Phone No "91 768 ####) - bartender:
- He saw the missing Madelaine, for the last time, yesterday at 16.45h next to the restaurant;
- He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left [absented themself] during such dinner;
On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts
- He saw the missing Madelaine, for the last time, yesterday at 16.45h next to the restaurant;
- He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left [absented themself] during such dinner;
On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts
kaz- Posts : 596
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 413
Join date : 2014-08-18
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
woodpecker wrote:I posted yesterday about David James Smith in too much hurry and included some information about another journalist with the same name. How careful we should be when the name is Smith!!! The reference I made to economic expertise and awards for business/economics writing were the wrong journalist Smith.
Below some more info about the work the correct David James Smith has done which strengthen my earlier (tho flawed) post about why such an experienced journalist would believe absolutely the Mccann story.
He specialises in investigative feature articles and books:
From 2008 onwards he has covered the following:
Lindsay Hawker murder in Tokyo
Two teachers children in harrow Middlesex murdering the other
jersey childcare scandal Haut de la garenne
Jeremy Bamber case - he murdered his family
Claudia Laurence case
Manchester Murder Squad - he spent time with them
the 9/11 'jumpers'
Jamie Bulger's killer
Murder in the French alps where two small children lost their parents and grandmother
Rogue policeman Ali Dizaei
His book on Nelson Mandela - New York Times said the book gave a fresh point of view on this 'modern day saint.'
he won the UK Feature Writer of the year in 2011 and 2012.
I am even more baffled today than yesterday as to why he responded so negatively to Johanna's very polite emails. You would expect that with his background he would be looking at the McCann case with an open mind and not afraid to question the abduction story - as he has apparently raised issues about Mandela which have not pleased some.
More on David James Smith:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Guest- Guest
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
David James Smith co wrote a long article for the Timesonline on 9 Sept 2007. Interestingly there is no reference to it on his website where he details his other work on famous crimes etc.
I’ve just read the article:
A few things hit me. He states things as facts because the Mccanns or their PR team said so
· He mentions the dogs and the hire car but stresses it was only hired after Madeleine vanished, but does not point out the dogs findings in the holiday apartment
· He states the police offered Kate McCann a deal for confessing to an accidental killing
· The tapas restaurant offered ‘a clear line of sight to the apartments, about 50 metres away.
· The Portuguese media lied by stating that 14 bottles of wine were consumed that night. Didn’t dockets show the wine orders?
· ‘The last moment Madeleine was definitely seen by someone other than the McCanns was at 7 pm.’ He must mean David Payne who is hardly an independent witness. From the police files not available them we know there are big doubts about this sighting.
· The call to the police was at 10.14 but they GNR only came at 11.10.
His
His comments on the searching are interesting -
‘At midnight the local police called the Policia Judiciaria, the PJ, who investigate serious crimes. The PJ arrived at 1am, according to the McCanns. There was substantial searching involving tourists and locals for some hours. Kate remained in the apartment hoping for news, while Gerry went out and looked.
By 3.30am the police had packed it in for the night. The searching was pretty much over. Gerry and Kate were frustrated and desperate. Gerry went out at about 4am with David Payne, another of their group, hoping to find something.
Later, at about 6am, the McCanns went out alone and walked around the scrubland on the outskirts of the village, holding hands and calling Madeleine’s name. There was nobody else around and they felt utterly alone.’
The amount of searching by the McCanns seems to be somewhat exaggerated.
He does not mention at all the setting up of the limited company in record time when she could have been found at any time. I would have thought that an experienced journalist like him would have commented on this.
Does anyone know if he wrote about the case later, especially after the police files were published?
His
I’ve just read the article:
A few things hit me. He states things as facts because the Mccanns or their PR team said so
· He mentions the dogs and the hire car but stresses it was only hired after Madeleine vanished, but does not point out the dogs findings in the holiday apartment
· He states the police offered Kate McCann a deal for confessing to an accidental killing
· The tapas restaurant offered ‘a clear line of sight to the apartments, about 50 metres away.
· The Portuguese media lied by stating that 14 bottles of wine were consumed that night. Didn’t dockets show the wine orders?
· ‘The last moment Madeleine was definitely seen by someone other than the McCanns was at 7 pm.’ He must mean David Payne who is hardly an independent witness. From the police files not available them we know there are big doubts about this sighting.
· The call to the police was at 10.14 but they GNR only came at 11.10.
His
His comments on the searching are interesting -
‘At midnight the local police called the Policia Judiciaria, the PJ, who investigate serious crimes. The PJ arrived at 1am, according to the McCanns. There was substantial searching involving tourists and locals for some hours. Kate remained in the apartment hoping for news, while Gerry went out and looked.
By 3.30am the police had packed it in for the night. The searching was pretty much over. Gerry and Kate were frustrated and desperate. Gerry went out at about 4am with David Payne, another of their group, hoping to find something.
Later, at about 6am, the McCanns went out alone and walked around the scrubland on the outskirts of the village, holding hands and calling Madeleine’s name. There was nobody else around and they felt utterly alone.’
The amount of searching by the McCanns seems to be somewhat exaggerated.
He does not mention at all the setting up of the limited company in record time when she could have been found at any time. I would have thought that an experienced journalist like him would have commented on this.
Does anyone know if he wrote about the case later, especially after the police files were published?
His
woodpecker- Posts : 53
Activity : 80
Likes received : 27
Join date : 2014-10-09
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Sorry to
labour the point but isn't it important that we have David James Smith saying that Jane Tanner and ROB were in possession of a child monitor and the waiter Jeronimo Salcedas saying he saw 'some' monitors on the table in the tapas bar. Maybe something has been lost in translation but to me, one is one, a couple is two and ' some ' are more than two. Why would Jane Tanner and ROB feel the need to check physically on their children if they had a monitor when the Paynes , who also had one , clearly did not ? Strange how JW nor GMC saw Jane Tanner doing her check. Was she really there at all ? If they had a baby monitor and weren't in fact physically doing checks we can discount her sighting and also Matt's little story about accompanying ROB on a 9.30ish Thursday night check. ( Wasn't ROB already at his apartment with his sick daughter anyway? ) If in fact these checks were fabricated it would mean the two timelines on the sticker book were drawn up as memory pointers for those involved and probably before the staged disappearance event.
I can see that Tanner's possession of a baby monitor was kept quiet as she had to have a reason to be doing a physical check in order to see 'Tannerman. ' If in fact this sighting was a complete lie as she wasn't even there why would she then give an almost identical description as Nuno Lourenco to the abductor? How would she even know ?
labour the point but isn't it important that we have David James Smith saying that Jane Tanner and ROB were in possession of a child monitor and the waiter Jeronimo Salcedas saying he saw 'some' monitors on the table in the tapas bar. Maybe something has been lost in translation but to me, one is one, a couple is two and ' some ' are more than two. Why would Jane Tanner and ROB feel the need to check physically on their children if they had a monitor when the Paynes , who also had one , clearly did not ? Strange how JW nor GMC saw Jane Tanner doing her check. Was she really there at all ? If they had a baby monitor and weren't in fact physically doing checks we can discount her sighting and also Matt's little story about accompanying ROB on a 9.30ish Thursday night check. ( Wasn't ROB already at his apartment with his sick daughter anyway? ) If in fact these checks were fabricated it would mean the two timelines on the sticker book were drawn up as memory pointers for those involved and probably before the staged disappearance event.
I can see that Tanner's possession of a baby monitor was kept quiet as she had to have a reason to be doing a physical check in order to see 'Tannerman. ' If in fact this sighting was a complete lie as she wasn't even there why would she then give an almost identical description as Nuno Lourenco to the abductor? How would she even know ?
kaz- Posts : 596
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 413
Join date : 2014-08-18
Re: SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008
Looking at the PJ Files again it seems that
the description of 'Tannerman' was given to the police before Nuno Lourenco's. If as I suspect ( see above post ) she made the whole sighting up she must have seen the Polish man somewhere to give such an accurate description. How Lourenco then got hold of it is anybody's guess! I doubt if she was actually acquainted with the man under suspicion as that could have made things awkward for herself and it's interesting that once this lead had been followed up by police resulting in delays in finding the real perpetrator , her description started to evolve and suddenly Murat was the fall guy.
the description of 'Tannerman' was given to the police before Nuno Lourenco's. If as I suspect ( see above post ) she made the whole sighting up she must have seen the Polish man somewhere to give such an accurate description. How Lourenco then got hold of it is anybody's guess! I doubt if she was actually acquainted with the man under suspicion as that could have made things awkward for herself and it's interesting that once this lead had been followed up by police resulting in delays in finding the real perpetrator , her description started to evolve and suddenly Murat was the fall guy.
kaz- Posts : 596
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 413
Join date : 2014-08-18
Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Similar topics
» SMITHMAN 11 An answer to Carla Spade about evidence that Martin Smith collaborated with the McCann Team since January 2008
» SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'
» SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?
» SMITHMAN 10: Is this absolute, 100% proof that the Smiths did not see Gerry McCann carrying away Madeleine at around 10pm on Thursday, 3 May, 2007?
» SMITHMAN 7: What is the actual evidence that makes people think that ‘Smithman’ was Gerry McCann?
» SMITHMAN 4: A summary of discrepancies in what the Smiths say about their 'sighting'
» SMITHMAN 2 - What can account for the 17 remarkable similarities between Tannerman and Smithman?
» SMITHMAN 10: Is this absolute, 100% proof that the Smiths did not see Gerry McCann carrying away Madeleine at around 10pm on Thursday, 3 May, 2007?
» SMITHMAN 7: What is the actual evidence that makes people think that ‘Smithman’ was Gerry McCann?
Page 2 of 4
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum