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

by **Tony Bennett** 01.10.15 22:32

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)

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

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. 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.

5. This group planned how best to create a plausible abductor.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

14. To put it bluntly, both Lournenco and Jane Tanner were given a 'script' - and acted it out pretty well.

15. Tanner went first, describing the fake abductor exactly as she'd been told to, to the PJ

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.

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

by kaz 02.10.15 9:25

Thanks for that. A lot to think about there.
I also wonder what made JT 'turn' on Murat when he appeared to be a part of the solution and then quickly became the problem . If JT was taking direction all the way someone must have put her up to naming Murat so thank the Lord for the Smiths who were able to categorically state that their sighting of the abductor WASN'T Murat ...........................................but could have been Gerry! You get the feeling there was a den of iniquity in Portugal where the members all started turning on each other in a desperate measure to extricate themselves from suspicion. So far they've managed to hold it all together with all parties exonerated. What a feat but what a web of deceit.

by guest12345 02.10.15 9:28

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

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. I'm not saying they are wrong, as no-one knows the full truth apart from the 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 ulikely.

Additional notes included above. (again, i'm not being argumentative, i'm just playing devils advocate)

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 11:10

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

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

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

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.

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
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

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.

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?

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!

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,

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?

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 [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

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

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!!

by guest12345 02.10.15 13:40

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.

Replies in Red for you Tony, thanks...

by kaz 02.10.15 14:52

Hi 'guest 12345'

Just a couple of thoughts I had about your points. You, red. Me, purple. You probably don't agree with much of it...................not many people do.

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.

If Jane Tanner possessed a baby monitor as has been stated as did the Paynes and possibly the Oldfields ( Jeronimo Salcedas said he saw several monitors on the table ) they wouldn’t be guilty of neglect at all. Risking it a bit perhaps but not neglectful. There’s something about all this ‘checking’ that really doesn’t ring right with me .Statements concerning it are invariably contradictory and they always smack at ‘over egging the pudding.’ An accusation of negligence would be irrelevant in the scheme of things when your child’s welfare was at stake. You’d tell the truth and damn the consequences. Maybe the checks were an invention to accommodate a Tanner sighting. If the men REALLY were up and down maybe they were sneaking back to the apartments to watch sport on the TV!

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

Who said anything about ‘murder?’

Or maybe he ( Nuno Lourenco ) 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?

Strange that Tanner’s description of her abductor sighting hadn’t yet been released but still Lourenco came up with a very similar description of a man.

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.

It would be only be attention seeking if Tanner was doing what she was doing solely for attention. If she was actually ‘hogging the limelight’ and getting things done for a very good reason , well that would be different.

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***

That’s another interesting thing about the Tanner and Lourenco sightings. They looked alike and they were both acting suspiciously . There’s more ways to be strange than taking an unhealthy interest in children. Just a coincidence that Lourenco’s man seemed to be strange in THAT way.

....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.

Redwood gave Tanner a’ get out of jail free’ card. He put nothing to bed , just made himself look and sound ridiculous.

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.

I don’t know about ‘coming up with the goods.’ Surely ‘coming up with the truth’ would be any true witness’s concern. ?

by Guest 02.10.15 15:38

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.]

by **Tony Bennett** 02.10.15 20:23

@ 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

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’.

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’. I did not. I 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.

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.
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. 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

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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’.

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.

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. 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.

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? Why did Leicestershire Police promote Tannerman, and why did Leicestershire Police link to the McCanns’ website for years? They didn’t think that promoting Melisssa Little’s ‘Tannerman’ was a waste of time, did they?

by jeanmonroe 03.10.15 12:15

[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 winkwink

)

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'

by guest12345 05.10.15 11:32

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.

by guest12345 05.10.15 11:32

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'

Correct. Not to mention all the other discussions off record.

by joyce1938 05.10.15 11:49

This subject is in DNA. It seems it had never been tested before, and has come with great surprise. It's in Daily Mail today, 5th October, please have read of it if you can. I can't be trusted to get the whole thing in my head to repeat, word from word, and prefer it be correct. But the gist of it is this, DNA has always thought that in the case of IVF, the egg would only contain genetics of donor. Well, it has been said today after tests over time, they are most amazed that in fact, the mother who has inplant of eggs, you can test and find that her womb has leached some of her DNA into the child, so in fact it seems to mean that said child would have a bit like 3 parents. I think we might find this of interest? joyce1938

by guest12345 05.10.15 12:07

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

by Guest 05.10.15 22:45

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.

Quite so when a valid observation is written, a feasible hypothesis presented based on available evidence and reasoned critical thinking or when I consider what is written to be note worthy.

As I say, I would welcome any alternative hypothesis you can present, or reasoned argument to counter the product of extensive research and analysis by members of this forum - providing your musing is within the confines of reality and not based on a hunch without evidence or substance to support it. Can I look forward to that?

BTW: No apology necessary.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.10.15 23:00

guest12345 wrote:
Ah yes, I forgot, forget logic and reasoning, you can't disagree with any theory of Tony Bennett's can you, apologies.

So this is the way you try to close down debate?

It's a classic sign of having lost the argument when you attack the man and not the issues.

Some information for you from this website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

QUOTE

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

An argumentum ad hominem is any kind of argument that criticises an idea by pointing something out about the people who hold the idea rather than directly addressing the merits of the idea. 'Ad hominem' is Latin for 'directed toward the man (as opposed to the issue at hand)'. An alternative expression is 'playing the man and not the ball'. Some examples:

"Listen, son. Mind-altering drugs can damage your brain. You're better off avoiding them." "Who are you to talk? I know you dropped a lot of acid back in the 60's."

"Apparently, you are too stupid to comprehend the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument."

Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument.

Also not to be confused with a number of other fallacies of relevance, like appealing to feelings and prejudices rather than intellect. There are fancy Latin terms for a lot of those, too; see:

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

by **Jill Havern** 05.10.15 23:04

guest12345 wrote:Ah yes, I forgot, forget logic and reasoning, you can't disagree with any theory of Tony Bennett's can you, apologies.

Not hard to work out where you've come from winkwink

by Angelique 06.10.15 0:27

joyce1938 wrote:This subject is in DNA. It seems it had never been tested before, and has come with great surprise. It's in Daily Mail today, 5th October, please have read of it if you can. I can't be trusted to get the whole thing in my head to repeat, word from word, and prefer it be correct. But the gist of it is this, DNA has always thought that in the case of IVF, the egg would only contain genetics of donor. Well, it has been said today after tests over time, they are most amazed that in fact, the mother who has inplant of eggs, you can test and find that her womb has leached some of her DNA into the child, so in fact it seems to mean that said child would have a bit like 3 parents. I think we might find this of interest? joyce1938

joyce1938

Well, I would say - yes that is very interesting.

If I remember correctly there was a result which contained a mixture of three - was it in the car?

Maybe this needs to move to relevant thread or new one ?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.15 11:17

guest12345 wrote:
Patronizing people once again Tony and once again 'your way or the highway'. Having said that, it appears that no matter what is put into the discussion, it will be unpicked by yourself, so you 'win the argument' as you put it. Ok Tony, for the sake of this 'argument' as you put it (discussion), you are right, anyone else is wrong, including all police forces involved.... Madeleine died earlier in the week and every man and his dog was involved in a big plan to cover each other and help their friends, the McCanns escape justice for effectively killing their child.

I really didn't expect you to prove my point about your having lost the argument and resorted to 'ad hominem' attacks quite so soon.

But there you are, you have.

I ought just to put clearly on the record that I have not said either that 'Madeleine died earlier in the week' nor that 'the McCanns effectively killed their child'.

To get back on topic, what I think I have demonstrated by the OP is that Martin Smith effectively was taken on board as part of the McCann Team in early 2008. And has remained on board with them ever since.

Not everyone agrees with me.

However, I have truly not seen one post on this thread or anywhere else that can counter my argument in the OP.

Nor for that matter have I yet seen a persuasive argument that the Smiths were always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

by guest12345 06.10.15 11:25

I really didn't expect you to prove my point about your having lost the argument and resorted to 'ad hominem' attacks quite so soon.
Oh put a sock in it Tony and put your dictionary down.

But there you are, you have.
Not really, as previously stated, i have responded to your discussion points (or 'attacks' as you like to label them)

I ought just to put clearly on the record that I have not said either that 'Madeleine died earlier in the week' nor that 'the McCanns effectively killed their child'.
Ok, if we are nit-picking, you said.... 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)

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

What else do you think happened to her earlier in the week that prompted days of subsequent planning? and do you now think she was alive all week, but kept shut away until they were ready to act out the abduction scenario??

To get back on topic, what I think I have demonstrated by the OP is that Martin Smith effectively was taken on board as part of the McCann Team in early 2008. And has remained on board with them ever since.
You mean works with/for them? Another paid actor to add to the ever increasing group to help concoct a bafta winning performance cover up?

Not everyone agrees with me.
I have to disagree with you on that one. I think Smith had an alliance with Murat only

However, I have truly not seen one post on this thread or anywhere else that can counter my argument in the OP.

Nor for that matter have I yet seen a persuasive argument that the Smiths were always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Couldn't agree with that bit any more. Smith sighting IMO was a total fabrication, to get Murat off the hook.

OG have used it as a tool to get Tanners ever changing witness statement discredited once and for all without her getting any backlash.

The McCanns will go along with it as it gives a more plausible/feasible window of opportunity for the 'abductor'.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.10.15 11:41

guest12345 wrote:Couldn't agree with that bit any more. Smith sighting IMO was a total fabrication,

REPLY: Agreed

to get Murat off the hook.

REPLY: That's a likely reason, but I suspect may be only part of a more complex story.

OG have used it as a tool to get Tanners ever changing witness statement discredited once and for all without her getting any backlash.

REPLY: Disagree. That was only a small by-product of the exercise.

The main functions of Smithman as used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special were:

1. To reinforce public perception that there ever was an abduction, and
2. To clear the way for an eventual announcement by the Met that they believe that Madeleine was killed by a burglar between 9.10pm and 10.00pm, the Smithman sighting giving Operation Grange 50 minutes for the abduction/burglary instead of 5

The McCanns will go along with it as it gives a more plausible/feasible window of opportunity for the 'abductor'.

REPLY: You have the evidence that the McCanns have used Smithman since 2008:

* Ex-head of MI5 draws up two e-fits, says they're provided by the Smiths
* Smithman used TWICE in Mockumentary May 2009
* Smithman promoted on McCanns' website ever since May 2009
* Smithman on 7 pages of Kate McCann's book May 2011

etc.

by guest12345 06.10.15 12:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:Couldn't agree with that bit any more. Smith sighting IMO was a total fabrication,

REPLY: Agreed

to get Murat off the hook.
REPLY: That's a likely reason, but I suspect may be only part of a more complex story.

OG have used it as a tool to get Tanners ever changing witness statement discredited once and for all without her getting any backlash.
REPLY: Disagree. That was only a small by-product of the exercise.

The main functions of Smithman as used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special were:

1. To reinforce public perception that there ever was an abduction, and
2. To clear the way for an eventual announcement by the Met that they believe that Madeleine was killed by a burglar between 9.10pm and 10.00pm, the Smithman sighting giving Operation Grange 50 minutes for the abduction/burglary instead of 5
You don't know that this will be what they announce, but yes, i too suspect it is to widen the window of opportunity to give a more realistic abduction time frame, or possibly (ulterior motive) to add weight to the neglect from the parents through leaving her unchecked for so long and thus also account for the cadaver scent in 5a

The McCanns will go along with it as it gives a more plausible/feasible window of opportunity for the 'abductor'.
REPLY: You have the evidence that the McCanns have used Smithman since 2008:

* Ex-head of MI5 draws up two e-fits, says they're provided by the Smiths
* Smithman used TWICE in Mockumentary May 2009
* Smithman promoted on McCanns' website ever since May 2009
* Smithman on 7 pages of Kate McCann's book May 2011

etc.
Yes, i agree they have used it to their advantage where they can, hence me stating that they are going along with it.

Unfortunately, due to the conditions in which the (fabricated) smithman sighting was undertaken, it can never be used in court, thus is easy to discredit if ever required.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.10.15 10:48

pennylane wrote:
There's not a doubt in my mind they feared the Smith sighting, even going as far as to eventually (2+ years later) morphing him into Tanner's alleged (earlier in the evening) 'swarthyman' sighting.

Just how many times do I have to spell out how the McCanns - and latterly the Met & BBC Crimewatch - have actively used the so-called 'Smithman' sighting? >>>

* 2008 - Got the Smiths to agree to the Henri Exton e-fits
* 2009 - Used twice in the 'Mockumentary'
* 2009-15 - Promoted on the 'Find Madeleine' website
* 2011 - Mentioned on 7 pages of Kate's book
* 2011 - Kate publishes 3-page table of 'striking comparison' between Tannerman and Smithman
* 2012 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* 2013 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith again, ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* Oct 2013 - BBC Crimewatch MCann Show, fully supported by the McCann Team, features Smithman as 'the centre of our focus'.

Is it not as clear as the finest crystal that the so-called 'Smithman sighting' has been used by the McCanns, and not 'feared'?

Remember Wendy Murphy

[ @ Mod - we are off-topic. Move to the recent Smithman thread? ]

by pennylane 11.10.15 10:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
There's not a doubt in my mind they feared the Smith sighting, even going as far as to eventually (2+ years later) morphing him into Tanner's alleged (earlier in the evening) 'swarthyman' sighting.
Just how many times do I have to spell out how the McCanns - and latterly the Met & BBC Crimewatch - have actively used the so-called 'Smithman' sighting? >>>

* 2008 - Got the Smiths to agree to the Henri Exton e-fits
* 2009 - Used twice in the 'Mockumentary'
* 2009-15 - Promoted on the 'Find Madeleine' website
* 2011 - Mentioned on 7 pages of Kate's book
* 2011 - Kate publishes 3-page table of 'striking comparison' between Tannerman and Smithman
* 2012 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* 2013 - DCI Redwood meets Martin Smith again, ahead of BBC Crimeatch McCann Show
* Oct 2013 - BBC Crimewatch MCann Show, fully supported by the McCann Team, features Smithman as 'the centre of our focus'.

Is it not as clear as the finest crystal that the so-called 'Smithman sighting' has been used by the McCanns, and not 'feared'?

Remember Wendy Murphy

[ @ Mod - we are off-topic. Move to the recent Smithman thread? ]

Sorry Tony I profoundly disagree with your conclusions on this subject for reasons that have been cited many, many times over the years. It seems pointless debating it anymore.

I have read the Smith police statements many times over, and I absolutely believe them. I do not buy into the motives given for them allegedly making it all up. I believe they are an honest family that have been dragged into the McCann mess along with many others.

Since the article below is what opened up the debate again, I have placed it herewith. roses

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

by Ray_Sneek 24.10.15 19:28

pennylane wrote:
I have read the Smith police statements many times over, and I absolutely believe them. I do not buy into the motives given for them allegedly making it all up. I believe they are an honest family that have been dragged into the McCann mess along with many others.

Since the article below is what opened up the debate again, I have placed it herewith.

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

So why did the Smiths make up two quite different e-fits?

Why did the police not produce one composite e-fit (as they usually do)?

by joyce1938 24.10.15 23:34

I think it has been said, the Smiths did not put the photo pics together. joyce1938

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 0:11

But Grange in answer to FOI affirmed that the Smiths did, IIRC.
Do you not believe Grange?

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.15 0:12

joyce1938 wrote:I think it has been said, the Smiths did not put the photo pics together. joyce1938

You raise an interesting point here.

What is the usual way of getting an e-fit out to the public?

Someone is attacked, or robbed.

They get a good view of their attacker.

They report this to the police immediately.

The victim describes what s/he remembers, with the help of a police artist, shall we say a 'forensic artist'.

And ONE e-fit is circulated. Usually within days.

Contrast that with what happened in this case:

1. Sighting not reported at all for 13 days

2. When sighting eventually reported, it turns out to be almost exactly the same as two other claimed kidhappers/abductors:
(a) Krokowski - by Nono Louenco
(b) Tannerman - by Jane Tanner.
All three kidnappers/abductors had: beige/cream trousers, warm cloth clothes, classic shoes and 'didn't look like a tourist'.

3. The people who saw him did so:
(a) only for a second or two
(b) in the dark
(c) with poor street lighting
(d) the man's head was obscured because his head was down and the child was partly hiding his face, and
(e) all three witnesses said they'd never be able to recognise him again

4. When these three witnesses were interviewed on 26 May by the PJ, no e-fits were drawn up

5. After well over four months, one of the three witnesses seemed to think that the man he'd seen was Gerry McCann

6. The basis for this was the way he was carrying his son on his left shoulder - exactly the same, actually, as every other person carries a toddlr on their shoulder

7. Months later Martin Smith changed his mind and began co-operating fully with the McCann Team

8. The e-fits were drawn up by the former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, Henri Extron

9. The two e-fits to most people's eyes do not look like the same man at all

10. It looks like each was produced on a different computer program

11. They were kept under wraps for over 5 years, first by the McCanns, then (so the McCanns say) by Leics Police and the PJ - and from August 2011 to October 2013 (two years and two months) by Operation Grange

12. On the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, DCI Redwood didn't actually say that the two e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths. He said they were drawn up by 'two of the witnesses'

13. Redwood said that these two e-fits were now 'the centre of our focus'

14. On the day these e-fits were first shown to the British public, 1,989 days had elapsed since 3 May 2007 when this 'sighting' was supposed to have happened.

Can anyone seriously look at that extraordinary history, and then look me in the eye (in a manner of speaking), and tell me they honestly believe that the Smiths really saw a bloke on 3 May 2007, looking like these two very different e-fits?

Hidden in the true story of this 'sighting', and the origin and use (or rather misuse) of these two-fits, are some very important jigsaw pieces indeed in the complete 'jigsaw puzzle' of the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.15 0:17

aiyoyo wrote:But Grange in answer to FOI affirmed that the Smiths did, IIRC.
Do you not believe Grange?

I think nearly everyone who's signed the petition asking for a Home Office report on Grange is sceptical to a greater or lesser degree about whether Grange is an honest pursuit of the truth.

And in recent years it's been repeatedly shown that some of our most senior police officers are capable of some of the biggest lies ever told - they protected Jimmy Savile for 50 years for starters

by aiyoyo 25.10.15 1:54

Tony Bennett wrote:I think nearly everyone who's signed the petition asking for a Home Office report on Grange is sceptical to a greater or lesser degree about whether Grange is an honest pursuit of the truth.

And in recent years it's been repeatedly shown that some of our most senior police officers are capable of some of the biggest lies ever told - they protected Jimmy Savile for 50 years for starters

I beg to differ.
Until we see the conclusion of Grange, there is no way of predicting definitively what their pursuit is. 4 years does seem hell of a long time in active investigation to pursuit the perpetrator/s of a shelved case, but if they were meant to white wash it what could they be investigating, dragging on for so long? Using any excuse will suffice surely?

While it may be the case that some senior police officers can be blind to crime taking place under their noses, to lie/mislead in the answers to FOI questions is an entire different context. Putting black on white is irrefutable evidence that cannot be argued away. There is no good reason why Grange would put themselves in that position laying themselves open to risk of future ramification?

by pennylane 25.10.15 14:46

Ray_Sneek wrote:
pennylane wrote:
I have read the Smith police statements many times over, and I absolutely believe them. I do not buy into the motives given for them allegedly making it all up. I believe they are an honest family that have been dragged into the McCann mess along with many others.

Since the article below is what opened up the debate again, I have placed it herewith.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
So why did the Smiths make up two quite different e-fits?

Why did the police not produce one composite e-fit (as they usually do)?

Two e-fits were made up because the description was not taken from one person, and the Smith family saw a man carrying a pale skinned blond little girl from different angles and remembered different things.

The police did not produce a composite e-fit because they were looking for Tannerman's earlier sighting and were focussed on Tannerman, but that focus was rapidly shifting. The McCann's buried their investigators' work (imo because they got too close to the truth) and swore Henri Exton and Co to secrecy. Goncalo Amaral was about to re-interview the Smith's but was taken off the case.

Alas for the Mc's the Internet was awash with daily discussions of the Smith sighting, and they had no choice but to slip it in somewhere, or forever fuel the suspicions that it was indeed Gerry McCann the Smiths saw! Still they waited until the case was shelved and good and cold (even though they had 24/7 access to the media), and with their usual sleight of hand, deftly morphed Smithman into Tannerman... even though Tanner described a swarthy long dark haired man, and the Smith's described a man with short clipped brown hair. I say again, the McCanns feared the Smith sighting or they would have produced it immediately.

I believe if Amaral had not been taken off the case, the Smith sighting would have taken center stage early on.

imho