SMITHMAN 8 - The Nine Phases of Smithman - How the Smiths became part of the McCann Team in January 2008

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

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.

kaz wrote: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.

Tony Bennett wrote:

kaz wrote: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.

@ Kaz    The whole tangled story of Wojchiech Krokowski, Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner is, I admit, hard to grasp - and ideally needs a careful study of the available evidence, which I've had time to do in the last year or two.

Because this whole 'Krokowski tale' is one of the most fundamental in understanding the case as a whole - and because the bit bolded above is a misunderstanding of the likely sequence events (not your fault at all) - I am going to share my hypothesis of how things might have developed.

I do thank you @ Kaz for grappling with this sequence of events because it seems that, like Richard Hall, you have begun to grasp the significance of it.

I start with these working assumptions:

1. That something may have happened to Madeleine very early on that week (see e.g. recent posts by HideHo, Hobs and PeterMac)
The police obviously have record of her movements throughout the week, otherwise they would have gone down that path. We do not know what photos, cctv recordings etc they have as a vast amount of the files are yet to be released. 

2. That there was a whole group who then set about creating a plausible abduction scenario, teeing up the breaking of the news that Madeleine was missing for Thursday evening. That group may have had 3 to 4 days to plan this
Hmm, so what is the motive for the tapas group for planning this scenario? Why would a group of people put themselves at risk of prison to help the McCanns out? Why not just say "nothing to do with me guv"? Do you think it's because the McCanns held them to ransom about them also neglecting their children?....If that were the case, planning an abduction further down the week, would allow the tapas group to miraculously start checking their kids very often between the 'early week death' and the time of the planned abduction, thus eliminating them from any so called neglect, or simply report the McCanns for their actions in planning an abduction and thus pass all blame onto them.

3. That Nuno Lourenco was a member of this planning group and was destined to play a major role in the events of 4 May onwards. Why would they do that? What is their purpose for playing a role in this? There is some support for this in that Lourenco seems (like quite a few others in this whole sorry story) to be in close touch with Robert Murat and his aunt and uncle, the Eveleighs at the Salsalito villa 

So then I think this is what happened

4. This planning group had one or more meetings. When? Why? Are we presuming here that they all calmly sat around the tapas bar drinking wine whilst planning the abduction of one of their children whilst Madeleine slowly decomposes in the apartment? (no evidence of decomposition in 5a)

5. This group planned how best to create a plausible abductor. The best plan would be to have no plausible abductor 'confusion is good' remember

6. They decided to use Wojchiech Krokowski as a template for the abductor. Did they?

7. Krokowski was staying that week in the Sol e Mar apartment in Burgau, which also has strong connections to the Murat family. 

8. I suggest that the plan was for Nuno Lourenco to create a plausible tale that his daughter was nearly kidnapped at Sagres beach (whether or not Krokowski was a willing patsy in the creation of this bogus event, or whether he was totally unaware that he was to be used in that way, I really have no idea). If he was involved, the best thing for him to do would be to stay quiet

9. The plan was also for Jane Tanner to say she'd seen abductor carrying away a child at about 9.15pm on 3rd May. I think the only person who planned this sighting was Tanner herself. She is an attention seeker, who changed her stories/descriptions/finger pointing more times than her underwear, hence she was quickly discredited as an unreliable witness.

10. Either everyone was at a planning meeting, and given instructions, or s small planning group spoke to both Lourenco and Tanner and told them what to say. At this point I will say that it may well be relevant that hairs of the haplotypes of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found at the Sol e Mar apartment where Krokowski himself was staying. Maybe they all sat round a table and worked out what each was going to do. IMO the only reason there is a connection between Tanner and Murat is something was going on between them, whether it be a fling, relationship, friendship, working relationship or part of a bigger swinging picture (still unproven). I don't think this was any big planning meeting about a full staged production of an abduction.

11. Lourenco played a very devious role in all of this. He knew from his Murat contacts which car Krokowski had rented that week. So he took a photo of it, and then invented a tale of how this 'kidnapper' had tried to kidnap his daughter outside a pastry shop in Sagres, then chased him away and took a photo of the car as the man, supposedly, drove away. IMO another attention seeker trying to get in on the action "yeah i saw someone too, look, i have  a picture" (gets press attention)

12. It was all utter lies, but worked out brilliantly for them all. Agreed, see above

13. In describing (a) the Lourenco-kidnapper and (b) the Tanner-abductor, both of them were told to emphasise his clothes. The one and only photo we have of Krokowksi shows him wearing, shall we say, 'old-fashioned' clothes. So great emphasis was laid on: 'Didn't look like a tourist', 'Warm clothes', 'Cloth clothes', Cream/beige trousers, shiny black, 'Classic' shoes etc. Everyone was talking, sharing details, Murat was close tot he case, Tanner was always vocal. It's not hard to copy a description of someone to try and point the finger and take the glory for 'i spotted the man!'

14. To put it bluntly, both Lournenco and Jane Tanner were given a 'script' - and acted it out pretty well. Disagree, i think more likely they both tried to come to the same conclusion to try and identify the perpetrator 

15. Tanner went first, describing the fake abductor exactly as she'd been told to, to the PJ Whether she did or didn't see someone, her statement became useless as time went on and she changed her stories, hence why Redwood recently weeded it away from people's attention so people could stop focusing on it. It could not be relied upon right fro the early days.

16. Lourenco went next, on the morning of Saturday 5 May, with a superficially plausible story about a kidnapping given to the  PJ just as Krokowski was flying off back to Poland

17. The result we all know. Goncalo Amaral and his men thought they had an abductor, and Amaral and his men contacted INTERPOL and the German and Polish police, with police boarding the plane in Berlin to interrogate Krokowski and then interrogating him once again when he got back to Poland.

So that's how Tanner 'knew' what to say.

Of course what she said was rubbish, proved as you so rightly say by her adamantly identifying Murat 9 days later as the man she said she had seen carrying a child. 

How Tanner came to do that, and which members of the British security services put her up to that, is a whole big story in itself, clouded as usual in this case by a veil of secrecy. Attention seeking, wanting limelight, trying to help her friends. IMO she pointed the finger at Murat due to a personal disagreement with him and from being influenced by journos and profilers stating that he fitted the profile

I really hope that has clarified your understanding of that week's events, rather than confused things further.

Think in terms of a possible series of desperate planning meetings between Sunday and Thursday that week

guest12345 wrote:

Whilst I think that you have some excellent knowledge and experience on this case Tony, I do feel that your imagination may have run away with you on your last post.

REPLY: As I said in my post, it is a hypothesis - based on what we know - and based on informed thinking about what might have happened. It is certainly be there to be attacked and shot down by evidence that others may produce. But to call it 'imagination' is inaccurate - that's a word much better applied e.g. to the mountain of hundreds or maybe thousands of 'psychics' who have imagined all sorts of things that might have happened to Madeleine  -and yet every single one of them has been proved wrong.
        
I'm not saying they are wrong, as no-one knows the full truth apart from the person who removed Madeleine's cadaver from the apartment, i just think the chances of that scenario being true, with so many people involved in the 'plan', is extremely unlikely.

Additional notes included above. (Again, I'm not being argumentative, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate)

REPLY: Your comments are of interest. I will reply to each one below 

Tony Bennett wrote:

guest12345 wrote:

Whilst I think that you have some excellent knowledge and experience on this case Tony, I do feel that your imagination may have run away with you on your last post.

REPLY: As I said in my post, it is a hypothesis - based on what we know - and based on informed thinking about what might have happened. It is certainly be there to be attacked and shot down by evidence that others may produce. But to call it 'imagination' is inaccurate - that's a word much better applied e.g. to the mountain of hundreds or maybe thousands of 'psychics' who have imagined all sorts of things that might have happened to Madeleine  -and yet every single one of them has been proved wrong.
        
I'm not saying they are wrong, as no-one knows the full truth apart from the person who removed Madeleine's cadaver from the apartment, i just think the chances of that scenario being true, with so many people involved in the 'plan', is extremely unlikely.

Additional notes included above. (Again, I'm not being argumentative, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate)

REPLY: Your comments are of interest. I will reply to each one below 

guest12345 in black
my replies in blue
guest12345 2nd reply Red (as best i can anyway)


The police obviously have record of Madeleine's movements throughout the week, otherwise they would have gone down that path [of something having happened earlier in the week to Madeleine. We do not know what photos, cctv recordings etc. - they have as a vast amount of the files are yet to be released.
 
Really? You say the police have images of Madeleine on CCTV that week, and that there is a 'vast amount' of unreleased material? NO to both of your assertions. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Portuguese police have any more photos, or any CCTV evidence of Madeleine that week, beyond the few photos we've seen. And the Portuguese Police released a vast amount of evidence; they only retained a few key documents  
Yes, really. There are many many files not released to the public from each police force/agency, not just the PJ. The files released by the PJ are PI files only. "there is no evidence" can only mean "there is no information in the public domain". Just because things haven't been seen on an internet forum or translation of the PI files, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Think about it...if there had been NO evidence of her movements, 1, if not all of the agencies involved would have flagged this and put her last known sighting at eg Tuesday...they haven't...which means they have evidence on file that can be backed up, we just unfortunately have no access to that.

Hmm, so what is the motive for the Tapas group for planning this 'plausible abduction scenario'? Why would a group of people put themselves at risk of prison to help the McCanns out? Why not just say "nothing to do with me guv"? Do you think it's because the McCanns held them to ransom about them also neglecting their children? If that were the case, planning an abduction further down the week would allow the Tapas group to miraculously start checking their kids very often between the 'early week death' and the time of the planned abduction, thus eliminating them from any so-called neglect, or simply report the McCanns for their actions in planning an abduction and thus pass all blame onto them.

Suppose for the sake of argument that certain people were involved in an activity that was either illegal, or deeply immoral and shameful, or very embarrassing. Suppose something happened that they needed to cover up. Then those involved would obviously get together and plan the cover-up. Something very much like that happened in both the other two cases I've investigated in depth - the deaths of Stuart Lubbock and of Lee Balkwell
True, but any activity can be covered up/denied, or put differently...disassociated with the death of a child. The only activities that would warrant the involvement of entire tapas goup, Murat, Murats associates, hotel staff, locals and many others in the 'plan' is if every single one of them was involved in pedophilia. There is no evidence to assume (other than an un-quantified Gasper statement by a 3rd party in a different location, regarding Payne), that all of them are involved in that. The only thing they are all guilty of is serious neglect, of which yes, i agree, they are all coveing for each other by their pact of silence. However, to suggest they are all complicit in the cover up of Madeleine's death and they spent a week manufacturing a full abduction story is a tall order.     
 
Why would [someone like Nuno Lourenco fabricate a story?] What is their purpose for playing a role in this?

Either because he was part of a group involved in something illegal/immoral/embarrassing, OR he was paid to do so. I know some pretty desperate people do some pretty desperate things for cash, but i don;t know many who would do so when it involved a murdered child and a group of foreign holiday makers

When [did this group have their planning meetings]? Why? Are we presuming here that they all calmly sat around the Tapas bar drinking wine whilst planning the abduction of one of their children whilst Madeleine slowly decomposes in the apartment? (no evidence of decomposition in 5A)?

I do not know what you mean about 'planning the abduction of one of their children'. Something may have happened to Madeleine early in the week. If yes, it did, THEN those with most to lose might set about planning an abduction hoax. Goodness, it has happened dozens of times in the past, PeterMac posted a list of about 30 of them somewhere - infants who were killed, and their parents pretended the child was missing
I agree, many parents have acted as if their children have been taken and i can understand this would/could be the case with the McCanns. However, most of those are lies by the immediate family, not also including groups of people who have hardly met too. Also, i suspect most of them have lied immediately after the event and not planning it for an entire week, with so many people agreeing to be involved.

The best plan would be to have no plausible abductor 'confusion is good' remember
But, if I'm right and this was indeed the plan, it has ben brilliantly successful! It has lasted 8 years and 5 months so far
You are assuming here that there was/is a plan to stage an abduction from prior to the event happening. I agree, they have continued to keep things confused as it keeps the neglect charges at bay and keeps the money rolling in. However, i personally don't think they planned this prior to the fateful day, i simply think they have taken advantage of all the people around the case changing stories etc

Did they [decided to use Wojchiech Krokowski as a template for the abductor]?
I have said that that is what I think. And I have provided a whole lot of supporting evidence.
True, you have explained that it's your thinking

7. Krokowski was staying that week in the Sol e Mar apartment in Burgau, which also has strong connections to the Murat family. 

If Nuno Lourenco he was involved, the best thing for him to do would be to stay quiet
There is evidence that Lourenco wasa 'Murat contact'. Murat may have been a 'fixer'. Maybe Lourenco got paid for his plausible, but clearly fabricated, tale of Krokowski trying to kidnap his daughter in the door-way of a cake shop? 
Or maybe he thought someone was trying to kidnap his daughter but actually wasn't, then when the alarm was raised regarding Madeleine, that emphasized the memory and prompted him to over exaggerate a non-situation?


I think the only person who planned this sighting was Tanner herself. She is an attention seeker, who changed her stories/descriptions/ finger pointing more times than her underwear, hence she was quickly discredited as an unreliable witness.
Jane Tanner no more than an 'attention-seeker'? Boy, have you got this wrong!
Absolutely not got it wrong, in the early days she was talking to everyone, giving statements, sightings, suggested abductors, talking to the media etc etc etc...attention seeker.

IMO the only reason there is a connection between Tanner and Murat is something was going on between them, whether it be a fling, relationship, friendship, working relationship or part of a bigger swinging picture (still unproven). I don't think this was any big planning meeting about a full staged production of an abduction.
Jane Tanner was obviously integral to the kind of plan I have outlined. I am sure Murat was very much involved. I do not necessarily suggest that the two met that week although it is certainly possible,
We'll have to disagree on this one (which is healthy discussion). I don't think she was involved in any plan other than sticking herself in the heart of the action. Ever since, all that has happened is whatever has come out of her mouth has been torn apart and thrown in the bin. I personally believe here is a connection between Murat and Tanner, although i don't believe this was any way involved in Madeleine's demise

IMO [Nuno Lourenco was] another attention seeker trying to get in on the action "Yeah I saw someone too, look, I have  a picture" (gets press attention)
There is no evidence to support your theory, and a great deal of evidence to support mine. Did Nuno Lourenco get much press attention? No. And you must explain how Lourenco 'happened' to be able to take a photo of the ACTUAL car used by Krokowksi that week. He didn't go to the press, he went to the press. I don't you think that Lourenco and his fellow-plotters absolutely KNEW that the Portuguese Police would take the bait - and chase Krokwski around Europe? 
I'm not seeing any evidence to support yours other than your theory Tony, sorry. Apologies on how i wrote that, i was not saying he did get press attention, i was giving an example of someone who would think about getting involvedd to get attention/5 mins of fame, apologies. Lourenco no doubt got little press attention because his story was of no use. The police had many leads which they chased all over the world...it's just another red herring.

Everyone was talking, sharing details, Murat was close to he case, Tanner was always vocal. It's not hard to copy a description of someone to try and point the finger and take the glory for 'I spotted the man!'
How can you say that Lourenco 'copied' the description from Tanner? - when her description is based on the man that Lourenco identified and whose rented car he had photographed? One of the keys to understand this, @ guest12345, is to consider when and under what circumstances Lourenco took that photograph of Krokowski's ACTUAL car. Just ponder on that please. It didn't happen by accident, did it?
I didn't say Lourenco copied her description, i'm simply saying that everyone was talking and it's easy for anyone to copy/build upon/convince themselves of a description if they hear murmurings. Let me have a bit of a rummage around what PI info there is on the photo as i agree, that is a valid point, but might have a perfectly genuine explination **** Just looked at the PJ PI files relating to Nuno Lourenco and it states that he had spotted the man earlier in the day taking pictures of his kids which he thought was disgusting. He then recognised him again later on at the pastry shop and then watched him get into a car after he had left the shop, thus taking the pictures of the car***

I [don't think Lourenco and Tanner were given a script], more likely they both tried to come to the same conclusion to try and identify the perpetrator 
And came up with virtually identical descriptions of the man? Don't be daft
I'm not being daft and please stop being patronizing if you will, thanks. See comment above. The worlds press were there, police everywhere, everyone was talking and words spread like wildfire.

Tanner's statement became useless as time went on and she changed her stories, hence why Redwood recently weeded it away from people's attention so people could stop focusing on it. It could not be relied upon right from the early days.
Agreed, except to point out that Tannerman held centre stage for SIX YEARS, FIVE MONTHS and ELEVEN DAYS - until the Crimewatch fabrications on 14 October 2013
....because the McCanns and their PR team kept pushing it. That doesn't mean the various forces/agencies believed it. Redwood put it to bed once and for all.

IMO Tanner pointed the finger at Murat due to a personal disagreement with him and from being influenced by journos and profilers stating that he fitted the profile
Influenced - or rather directed - by the 'profilers' and other shadowy figures in the British security services - YES. Hence, for Jane Tanner, Krokowski rapidly morphed into Murat!! 
Quite possibly yes, she was in a position where she was under the spotlight based on what she has verbalized over the first few days so was under intense pressure to come up with the goods. With people pushing names and descriptions into her head, it's no wonder they changed so much and the police and others around quickly knew she was a total waste of time and effort. 

Verdi wrote:With respect guest12345, your attempts to destroy a plausible hypothesis built on available evidence and thus quite within the realms of feasibility, appear to be a string of your own unconnected thoughts with little other purpose than being contrary for the sake of it.

Whether right or wrong or whether others agree or disagree with specific points, you can't deny the extent of research that Tony Bennett and other members of this forum have undertaken over the months and years since little MBM disappeared.  Bearing this in mind, I think their knowledge of the case and consequential opinions have far more substance than flimsy thoughts based on non-substantiated evidence like swinging and Tanner's ego.  Maybe there was swinging going on (which I seriously doubt) but that would not explain the level of concealment as to the fate of Madeleine McCann.

Read, for example, the recently posted-up thoughts of Hobbs (sorry can't post link at the moment), put aside your own baseless prejudices and pondering for the while and think logic - all your questions will be answered and individual points you raise also answered.  There is no scope in this case for mollifying sentimentality, you have to accept that humans are capable of  of committing the most horrendous criminal acts and as they say - every man has his price!  As I say, think logic - unless you can conjure up an alternative plausible hypothesis that can counter the thoughts of others, based on evidence of course.  I for one would welcome consideration of an alternative view point that might explain the murky underbelly of this never ending saga because from where I'm standing there is only one likely explanation - and it ai'nt pretty and certainly not for the faint hearted.

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

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

'Who said anything about ‘murder?’
---------------------
The 'following'

Ex DCI Redwood:  'she may not have left the apartment alive'

Met Comissioner BHH. 'investigating the murder of .......'

SY/OG: 'theory' 'Madeleine was killed in apartment by 'burglators', who 'stole' NOTHING of VALUE, (who then 'abducted' a 'dead'  Madeleine   )

The PJ. (accidental death) and Portuguese AG.

Gerry McCann: 'there's no evidence to implicate us, in her DEATH'

Gerry McCann: 'yeah, yeah, i know, Kate killed her in a frenzy..'

C Mitchell: 'If she's dead, she's dead, but not by their hands' (parents)

I'm 'sure' there are many EX Met 'cops' who have also said, in 'commentary', 'death, murder, dead'

Tony Bennett wrote:@ guest12345   Replies to your post grouped under headings, below

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

Photos and CCTV images of Madeleine

You maintain there ‘could be’ and probably are photos and CCTV evidence and maybe other evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday that week and you say it’s all probably in the undisclosed PJ files. It is an assertion you make without any evidence. Indeed you admit you ‘assume’ it to be so. I disagree with you 
Yourself and PeterMac (and others) who are well educated on the law, police files and what is released, should be well aware that only a subset of the files and evidence has been released to the public...called 'public interest files'.

OG and various other agencies have mountains of additional material which has not (yet) been released to the public and will not be whilst it is a live, on-goimg investigation...an open case. You, of all people should know that.

The PJ released a 'vast amount of evidence' and only retained a 'few key documents'...according to who? the press? You? How many documents have you seen from OG/SY?CEOP/SOCA/NCA???? and who has confirmed what documents/evidence are not in the public domain? (no-one, as they would lose their jobs).


If there is a cover-up, why?

First of all, you say the reason could be ‘paedophilia’, which I never brought into the subject. Then you say ‘The only thing they are guilty of is serious neglect’. I disagree with you on that as well’.
Unless there is any evidence against that, then as far as i am concerned (just my optinion), then there is only evidence of neglect (with a hope of death by neglect further down the line if the guilty party is found, or the body is found), the rest is speculation...one of which could be pedophilia.

Why did Nuno Lourenco fabricate a story about his child being nearly kidnapped (and fail to report the alleged kidnap for six days), then take a photograph of Krokowski’s car, and finally ’phone the PJ on the morning of Saturday 5 May, just as Krokowski’s plane was taking off for Poland?

First, you spoke of ‘a murdered child’. Correct, IMO a murdered child (hence CEOP/SOCA involvement), not an accident. There is enough evidence to support thiI do not know why Lourenco did what he did. I would say that by fabricating that story about Krokowski, at best he was wasting police time, at worst he was perverting the course of justice. He probably did this because he was a friend of Murat, or for money, or both. Possibly, though i don't believe he was any paid member of a group plan

You wrote: “Maybe he thought someone was trying to kidnap his daughter”. That suggests to me that you have never read Lourenco’s statement or, if you have, that you did so a long time ago. When you look at his unlikely tale, then add the fact that he did not report the whole thing until six days later, it becomes very difficult to see any part of it as truthful.  
Read the statement again and from what it says, it clearly states that he thought someone was trying to abduct his daughter, hence he took a photo. So that clears that up.
 
You also wrote: “Lourenco no doubt got little press attention because his story was of no use”. That tells me that you know little about what use his story was put to. You are crossing wires again here, merging 'his possible intention' (i.e to get press attention/time int he limelight) and what the statement was used for . To be brief:

1. It was used to throw Goncalo Amaral and his men off the scent and use up valuable time in the very first two days of their investigation by sending the PJ, the German police, the Polish police and even INTERPOL on a wild goose chase
There is no evidence to say that was what it was deliberately used for, that again is your assumption. I think you mean the 'consequence' of the statement, which of course, would be to investigate the sighting.

2. It appears that the McCann Team made good use of it a week later by amplifying the story to suggest that the McCanns, with Madeleine and the twins, were on Sagres beach on Sunday 29^th and that Lourenco’s alleged ‘kidnapper’ had spotted Madeleine on the beach and then planned to abduct her. There was a spate of stories about this in the British press 10^th to 12^th May 2007. In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine being reported missing, this influenced public perception and created an image of a paedophile abductor in the public’s mind 
What the McCann team did with the information, as with any other scrap of info they obtained throughout the case, is again, of no relevance to him and his statement....which i might add you have pointed out made the British press

3. I also contend as you know that Martin Smith used the description of Krokowski when he made his statement: ‘Didn’t look like a tourist’, ‘Warm clothes’, ‘Beige trousers’, ‘Classic shoes’ etc. etc.

That’s a very great deal of use that his story was put to. 
Same as the comment above but Smith, not McCanns.            

You wrote: “Just looked at the PJ PI files relating to Nuno Lourenco and it states that he had spotted the man earlier in the day taking pictures of his kids which he thought was disgusting. He then recognised him again later on at the pastry shop and then watched him get into a car after he had left the shop, thus taking the pictures of the car”. Look in detail at his actual statement. You will surely recognise then how ludicrous his tale is.
Not ludicrous at all. Simply a protective parent looking at someone acting strangely around his child, then reporting it after hearing of another child going missing. Seems very logical to me.

Could a whole group of people lie?

You say that only an immediate family would lie if something bad happened to their child. I agree there has to be a good reason why several people would lie about something like this. Exactly, a group of people might lie about the times they were checking on kids, but if they knew a friends child had either been killed, of has died due to neglect, i seriously doubt ALL would cover for them, especially as they are not close friends and it involves the death of a child. But if we look at all the contradictions in the evidence in this case, it is very clear that a number of people have lied. Agreed, for various reasons though, but IMO not to cover up the death of the child (mainly to cover their own arses against neglect charges and/or to try and help when under pressure)And, yes, this does happen in other cases. Lourenco is certainly one of them. Let’s also not forget that in an article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard, he wrote of Brian Kennedy and his men ‘intimidating witnesses into silence’. I would take anything that Brian Kennedy said/did with a pinch of salt. He has no official investigative training and had no authority to go and quiz people. IMO a lot of his involvement was for self promotion. He is a very savvy businessman and will use any means to promote his empire. Regardless, again, Kennedy has no relevance in this thread.

You also wrote: “I personally don't think they planned this prior to the fateful day”. That all depends on when ‘the fateful day’ was. 3rd May, early evening (IMO and that of the police forces involved based on the evidence they have).

Jane Tanner, just an attention-seeker?

That’s what you say. And you’ve added to it, by saying: “Absolutely not got it wrong, in the early days she was talking to everyone, giving statements, sightings, suggested abductors, talking to the media etc. etc. etc...attention seeker…I don't think she was involved in any plan other than sticking herself in the heart of the action”. Really? She was interviewed twice by the PJ, as were many other friends of the McCanns, and the McCanns themselves. Where do you get: “In the early days, she was talking to ‘everyone’”? No she wasn’t. She was When Gerry McCann on 25 May 2007 spoke about an alleged abductor, based on Jane Tanner’s statement, neither he nor anyone else mentioned her by name. The fact that the witness was a close friend of the McCanns was never mentioned either. Contrary to what you assert, Jane Tanner was kept under wraps for months, and then only made a brief appearance in the Panorama programme about Madeleine on 19 November 2007.  She was kept under wraps in the public eye for months yes. She made her first 'formal statement on the 10th May. I have no doubt that in those 7 days she would have voiced her 'sightings' to many of the agents on scene. The place was flooded with people from different forces/agencies and everybody was being questioned and talking to each other. You are suggesting she stayed silent for 7 days??? Impossible.

You also wrote: “With people pushing names and descriptions into her head, it's no wonder they changed so much and the police and others around quickly knew she was a total waste of time and effort”. Really? So answer me this. Why did the press promote Tannerman? Because it sells papers Why did Leicestershire Police promote Tannerman, because they had nothing else to go on and were out of their depth and why did Leicestershire Police link to the McCanns’ website for years? They thought they were supporting the McCanns as they believe/d they are innocent of all charges They didn’t think that promoting Melisssa Little’s ‘Tannerman’ was a waste of time, did they? No idea, i would have to ask them  

guest12345 wrote:

Verdi wrote:With respect guest12345, your attempts to destroy a plausible hypothesis built on available evidence and thus quite within the realms of feasibility, appear to be a string of your own unconnected thoughts with little other purpose than being contrary for the sake of it.

Whether right or wrong or whether others agree or disagree with specific points, you can't deny the extent of research that Tony Bennett and other members of this forum have undertaken over the months and years since little MBM disappeared.  Bearing this in mind, I think their knowledge of the case and consequential opinions have far more substance than flimsy thoughts based on non-substantiated evidence like swinging and Tanner's ego.  Maybe there was swinging going on (which I seriously doubt) but that would not explain the level of concealment as to the fate of Madeleine McCann.

Read, for example, the recently posted-up thoughts of Hobbs (sorry can't post link at the moment), put aside your own baseless prejudices and pondering for the while and think logic - all your questions will be answered and individual points you raise also answered.  There is no scope in this case for mollifying sentimentality, you have to accept that humans are capable of  of committing the most horrendous criminal acts and as they say - every man has his price!  As I say, think logic - unless you can conjure up an alternative plausible hypothesis that can counter the thoughts of others, based on evidence of course.  I for one would welcome consideration of an alternative view point that might explain the murky underbelly of this never ending saga because from where I'm standing there is only one likely explanation - and it ai'nt pretty and certainly not for the faint hearted.

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

Ah yes, i forgot, forget logic and reasoning, you can't disagree with any theory of Tony Bennetts can you, apologies.

guest12345 wrote:

Ah yes, I forgot, forget logic and reasoning, you can't disagree with any theory of Tony Bennett's can you, apologies.