Re: winnower1 issues a challenge: Bennett's analysis of the Smith family's actions and statements is 'seriously flawed'. Is it?

by JRP 01.08.16 13:10

I'm a bit lost with what Jane Tanner says about anything.

So just to be clear.
Liverpool v Chelsea Champions League semi final 1st May
Manchester United v AC Milan Champions League semi final 2nd May

So what match was Gerry watching on the 3rd?

by Guest 01.08.16 13:37

JRP wrote:I'm a bit lost with what Jane Tanner says about anything.

So just to be clear.
Liverpool v Chelsea Champions League semi final 1st May
Manchester United v AC Milan Champions League semi final 2nd May

So what match was Gerry watching on the 3rd?

I would put money on the answer being 'none'. The games between Spanish and German teams below wouldve been of little interest aside from the fact that the UEFA Cup Final that year was to be held in Glasgow.

Being in the apartment until 2140 or so does little to help the notion of abduction. Conversely would've made a good alibi for childcare. Conspicuous by its absense on any night

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

by Guest 01.08.16 14:18

April28th wrote:
Verdi wrote:

The reference point is the night of Thursday 3rd May, I see no reason to assume that Gerry McCann had left the Tapas meal to take himself off to a local bar to watch football.

This is the point. There were no relevant games on Thursday. Therefore more evidence that Jane was filling her account of the 3rd up with anecdotes from previous nights. Both English games were on the Tuesday and Wednesday. Since Tuesday was quiz night, it follows that if Gerry was watching a match it would be the Wednesday match (unless he chose not to watch it all - Champions League games start at 1945 and end around 2140, quiz started at 2100).

I'm making the case that Kelly's is the most likely venue for Berry and Balu because they DID place themselves at a bar and that's what Elca was replying to. The Smiths, we know, went to Kelly's and Peter is a Manchester United fan (again, Wednesday match).

I said in the first post it is fuzzy because it can't be confirmed, but if there was any night Gerry watched a match it would've been Weds, and the likeliest venue would be Kelly's (I don't buy Gerry sitting alone in the apartment watching it on a tiny tv in the corner, not least given what a good missed alibi that would've been for childcare), in which case the Smiths would know Gerry by sight.

That was the original point, it got a bit lost with Elca's comedy routine

You still haven't presented a compelling argument to justify your previous comments - I make no reference to Elca Craig's observations. Really, it's just utter nonsense, you're building a theory on a whim leading on a road to nowhere.

If you're now suggesting you think Martin Smith or one his family knew or could recognize Gerry McCann because he went to a bar to watch football, without a more compelling connection it amounts to nothing - even if Gerry McCann was seen at a bar somewhere in Praia da Luz - which I very much doubt.

I repeat, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest nor reason to suppose that Gerry McCann went to a local bar on any night of the week 28th April/3rd May 2007, to watch football. A chance comment allegedly made by Kate McCann and repeated by Jane Tanner, as to why GM was missing from the Tapas table for a few extra minutes, cannot reasonably be interpreted as a trip to a local bar to watch football!

If you can provide some substantial information to back-up your theory, I'm all ears.

by Guest 01.08.16 14:24

JRP wrote:
So what match was Gerry watching on the 3rd?

I venture to suggest he wasn't! He was on the street having a natter with Jes Wilkins whilst Jane Tanner, apparently unseen, was quietly flip-flopping about the same amber illuminated street - abductor spotting. Allegedly!

by Guest 01.08.16 14:32

April28th wrote:Also I just found this collated list of venues specifically recommended for English tourists online thanks to a Martin Roberts article. Bold annotations are mine;

The Bull - English pub, does show sports
Clive’s Bar - Lack of tv a selling point - does not show sports
Godots - Offered live music Tuesdays and had Quiz Weds - both the relevant football nights
Junction 17 (aka Carlos’ Bar) - Theme bar, does not show sports
Kelly’s - Purposed bar showing live sports
Luz Tavern - Tavern, does show sports, is opposite the church
JD’s - Formerly Godots
The Snug (opened 2011) - been through a few name changes and I am not able to determine what was there in 2007, however as of Snug it does advertise showing sports. Forms an almost perfect triangle with Kelly's and Nautilus on a map
Olly’s Bar (opened 2011) - Ditto The Snug

So, if these are the venues most likely for an English tourist, then according to the sourced websites the only way Kelly's can be fairly described as an unlikely venue for Balu/Berry is if you can prove that neither man knew the difference between a bar, pub or tavern, and then subsequently make a case for why it's more likely those places (Luz Tavern and The Bull) are more likely venues for you (given that they are in the same area). I would posit that's pretty unlikely

ETA - Made some quick maps so this doesn't seem like gibberish to anyone skimming;
Zoomed out to show relative distances of apartment blocks and Mill

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

Honed in on Kelly's area to show relative distance between venues

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

Argggh. You are still missing around 20 venues, each known to have sports TV in 2007. If you want to stick Gerry, or Berry/Balu, in Kelly's, provide some evidence thereof.

It's like me saying Gerry watched footie in Boozy Suzies (the nearest pub to 5A, known to have sports TV) without having a shred of evidence to place him there.

Or perhaps he was meeting Sir Clement Freud in the Plough and Harrow, over a footie match and a strawberry vodka? Mind you, no evidence of that either.

by Guest 01.08.16 14:48

You're just being wilfully ignorant at this point. I asked you to give examples of bars more plausible and you give a pub as another inane reply. Next you'll be telling me 'pubs have bars as well so it's the same thing'.

Since you obviously don't have anything useful to add (and are resorting to pulling verdi's valid points about Gerry and applying them to Berry and Balu as if I didn't make any argument on the first page of this post) I'll bid you good day.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Yes, it is all anecdotal/circumstantial as far as including Gerry. That's why I said it's fuzzy and don't state it as fact.

by Guest 01.08.16 15:28

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

Meanwhile, Mr Bennett's invitation for winnower1 to explain how his analysis concerning Mr Smith is 'seriously flawed', has hit the comedy club circuit - be warned, your sides might split it's so hilariously adult and intelligent.

Still no explanation as to how Mr Bennett's analysis is 'seriously flawed' but that's only to be expected considering the track record of the cyber-comics.

Mr Bennett started this thread to give critics a platform to counter his argument face à face - so where are you? Please leave your wise cracks at the door..

by JRP 01.08.16 16:50

Jane Tanners "faux pas" as mentioned above isn't really what it seems, in my opinion. It's supposed to be a flip remark said in the street outside 5a, when there is "confusion" around where Gerry and Jez were standing... I was standing here? No I remember you were there?
So then Tanner mentions Gerry watching football, and if this wasn't supposed to be included in the scene, it could have been edited out.
It's not a flip remark "faux pas" It's there for a reason... it all adds to the confusion.

This documentary was their script, they had total control over all content, so anything said can't be a faux pas.

by kaz 01.08.16 18:57

JRP wrote:
This documentary was their script, they had total control over all content, so anything said can't be a faux pas.

This is a good point in my opinion and so Tanner appears to be giving Gerry an 'alibi' for being 'longer than normal.' However having said that, one would have thought that they could have come to some pre consensus on who was standing where before the show went live. I tend to think that Tanner was a SORT of loose cannon and SORT of embroidered on the given script. The poor lady can't SORT of help herself.

by JRP 01.08.16 20:14

kaz wrote:
JRP wrote:
This documentary was their script, they had total control over all content, so anything said can't be a faux pas.
This is a good point in my opinion and so Tanner appears to be giving Gerry an 'alibi' for being 'longer than normal.' However having said that, one would have thought that they could have come to some pre consensus on who was standing where before the show went live. I tend to think that Tanner was a SORT of loose cannon and SORT of embroidered on the given script. The poor lady can't SORT of help herself.

I sort of agree, but yeah right, I sort of don't agree.

I imagine that there was a pre consensus on who was standing where, I think they decided that the scenario we saw was the more realistic and believable version.
This was a made for TV documentary of their version of events, events which we only have their word for. The likelihood is, Thursday evening wasn't exactly as we saw on TV.

by Guest 01.08.16 20:44

Madeleine Was Here - Channel 4 Cutting Edge shown early May 2009 (that month again) was Uncle Dave Edgar's magnum opus. Despite being categorized as such, it was not a documentary per se but more of a reconstruction according to McCann law. Gerry McCann was the director, producer, script writer and star performer - he desperately needed this opportunity to put the record straight, to spread the word according to Professor McCann, he who must be obeyed. It was nothing more than a PR exercise, a good marketing ploy to use his words, displayed with great aplomb a la McCann. To add insult to injury, Operation Grange even placed more credence on this than the official investigation conducted by the PJ and coordinated by Goncalo Amaral, when filming their very own reconstruction aired during the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special.

There really is a serious flaw here - Uncle Edgar omitted to include the sighting reported by Martin Smith and family that later became the key focus of Operation Grange, once they had eliminated the Tanner sighting as a legitimate tourist that just happened to be in the vicinity when Ms Tanner was flip-flopping about the McCann apartment.

What a tangled web eh?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.16 21:37

winnower1/Win has sent 3 further tweets:

@winnower1

@zampos Tony, I agree it is unfair to not explain further why I think your theory re: Smiths is flawed. Will try to explain ON your forum.

@winnower1

@zampos I'm not dodging-am moving to a new house (boxes everywhere) & have out of town guests. To clarify - I did not call you 'untruthful'.

@winnower1

@zampos The 'serious' flaw I see is the unsupported allegation that Smith & Murat were friends. Everything else you allege stems from that.

MY REPLY: I did on a couple of occasions refer to Robert Murat and Martin Smith as 'friends'. This was based on my interpretation of reported comments about the relationship made by Martin Smith and his son.

Martin Smith has on the record denied that he and Murat are friends.

My position is this.

1 There are on-the-record quotes from Martin Smith and his son admitting that he and Murat had 'met several times' over a period of 'two years' (before May 2007)
2 It is self-evident that Martin Smith must have known Murat well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat
3 I may be wrong, but I detect an evasiveness or sensitivity on the part of Martin Smith when asked about Murat, and to my mind that is proved by his action in summer 2007 in using solicitors to force an Irish newspaper to withdraw and apologise for what they wrote about Smith's relationship with Murat (referenced in the Smithman threads)
4 Very little if anything, in all of my reams of analysis about Martin Smith and 'Smithman', as members and guests here are well aware, turns on the relatively narrow issue of whether the two man were friends or just acquaintances
5 Therefore the claim by winnower1 that "your analysis is seriously flaws because everything else you allege stems from alleging that Murat and Smith were friends" is demonstrably false.

by Guest 01.08.16 23:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
5 Therefore the claim by winnower1 that "your analysis is seriously flaws because everything else you allege stems from alleging that Murat and Smith were friends" is demonstrably false.

Demonstrably false and total nonsense from what I've read. I can only conclude that either winnower1 has deliberately misconstrued the subject matter or winnower1 fails to read and absorb - a common fault I've noticed where this case is concerned.

Either way it's an unnecessary and misleading - an unfair appraisal of valid points presented in readable format, without the need for personal insults and unfounded accusations in the absence of reasoned argument. In short - got something to say come on in and say it!

I look forward to the tweeters presence hereon to understand the full story.

by Tony Cadogan 02.08.16 2:36

Tony Bennett wrote:winnower1/Win has sent 3 further tweets:

@winnower1

@zampos Tony, I agree it is unfair to not explain further why I think your theory re: Smiths is flawed. Will try to explain ON your forum.

@winnower1

@zampos I'm not dodging-am moving to a new house (boxes everywhere) & have out of town guests. To clarify - I did not call you 'untruthful'.

@winnower1

@zampos The 'serious' flaw I see is the unsupported allegation that Smith & Murat were friends. Everything else you allege stems from that.

MY REPLY: I did on a couple of occasions refer to Robert Murat and Martin Smith as 'friends'. This was based on my interpretation of reported comments about the relationship made by Martin Smith and his son.

Martin Smith has on the record denied that he and Murat are friends.

My position is this.

1 There are on-the-record quotes from Martin Smith and his son admitting that he and Murat had 'met several times' over a period of 'two years' (before May 2007)
2 It is self-evident that Martin Smith must have known Murat well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat
3 I may be wrong, but I detect an evasiveness or sensitivity on the part of Martin Smith when asked about Murat, and to my mind that is proved by his action in summer 2007 in using solicitors to force an Irish newspaper to withdraw and apologise for what they wrote about Smith's relationship with Murat (referenced in the Smithman threads)
4 Very little if anything, in all of my reams of analysis about Martin Smith and 'Smithman', as members and guests here are well aware, turns on the relatively narrow issue of whether the two man were friends or just acquaintances
5 Therefore the claim by winnower1 that "your analysis is seriously flaws because everything else you allege stems from alleging that Murat and Smith were friends" is demonstrably false.

The discussion of the Smith episode on this forum seems to run into hundreds of pages. To help me out, would you be so kind as to respond to the following:

Martin Smith has on the record denied that he and Murat are friends.

Please give references unless you have in mind only M Smiths’s message to R D Hall.

My position is this.

1 There are on-the-record quotes from Martin Smith and his son admitting that he and Murat had 'met several times' over a period of 'two years' (before May 2007)

Please give references to the “quotes”.

2 It is self-evident that Martin Smith must have known Murat well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat

Do you mean that Martin Smith must have known Murat by sight well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat?

3 I may be wrong, but I detect an evasiveness or sensitivity on the part of Martin Smith when asked about Murat, and to my mind that is proved by his action in summer 2007 in using solicitors to force an Irish newspaper to withdraw and apologise for what they wrote about Smith's relationship with Murat (referenced in the Smithman threads)

Please give references.

Many thanks

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.16 7:54

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:MY REPLY: I did on a couple of occasions refer to Robert Murat and Martin Smith as 'friends'. This was based on my interpretation of reported comments about the relationship made by Martin Smith and his son.

Martin Smith has on the record denied that he and Murat are friends.

My position is this.

1 There are on-the-record quotes from Martin Smith and his son admitting that he and Murat had 'met several times' over a period of 'two years' (before May 2007)
2 It is self-evident that Martin Smith must have known Murat well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat
3 I may be wrong, but I detect an evasiveness or sensitivity on the part of Martin Smith when asked about Murat, and to my mind that is proved by his action in summer 2007 in using solicitors to force an Irish newspaper to withdraw and apologise for what they wrote about Smith's relationship with Murat (referenced in the Smithman threads)
4 Very little if anything, in all of my reams of analysis about Martin Smith and 'Smithman', as members and guests here are well aware, turns on the relatively narrow issue of whether the two man were friends or just acquaintances
5 Therefore the claim by winnower1 that "your analysis is seriously flaws because everything else you allege stems from alleging that Murat and Smith were friends" is demonstrably false.

The discussion of the Smith episode on this forum seems to run into hundreds of pages. To help me out, would you be so kind as to respond to the following:

Martin Smith has on the record denied that he and Murat are friends.

Please give references unless you have in mind only M Smiths’s message to R D Hall.

My position is this.

1 There are on-the-record quotes from Martin Smith and his son admitting that he and Murat had 'met several times' over a period of 'two years' (before May 2007)

Please give references to the “quotes”.

2 It is self-evident that Martin Smith must have known Murat well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat

Do you mean that Martin Smith must have known Murat by sight well enough to be so sure that the man he said he saw was NOT Murat?

3 I may be wrong, but I detect an evasiveness or sensitivity on the part of Martin Smith when asked about Murat, and to my mind that is proved by his action in summer 2007 in using solicitors to force an Irish newspaper to withdraw and apologise for what they wrote about Smith's relationship with Murat (referenced in the Smithman threads)

Please give references.

Many thanks

The discussion on the Smithman sighting may run to hundreds of pages, but it won't take you that long to read through just the OPs on the original 'Smithman' and on 'SMITHMAN2' to 'SMITHMAN9' in the 'Crimewatch Reconstruction' section of the forum.

A good start would be the 'SMITHMAN5' thread where I set out 12 separate sets of contradictions about the Smith family's evidence:

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

by Cmaryholmes 02.08.16 8:13

Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the Mccanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence ? ( forgive me if this has already been addressed)

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.16 8:26

Cmaryholmes wrote:Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the McCanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence? (forgive me if this has already been addressed)

@ Cmaryholmes

Yes, it is a coincidence.

'Smithman' is one of the biggest 'red herrings' in this entire case of fabrications, deceptions and outright lies.

For one thing, DCI Redwood making 'Smithman' the 'centre of our focus' can only be fully understood if you accept (as I did from Day One in May 2011) that Operation Grange was designed to be an expensive charade from the very start.

The claim that Gerry McCann was carting his dead daughter openly through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10pm on 3 May 2007, at the very moment that his wife was raising the alarm, has always struck me as ridiculous in the extreme. I do not mean to cause offence to anyone who still thinks that Smithman could be Gerry McCann, I am expressing my personal view.

I agree that Gerry McCann bears a superficial resemblance to one of the Smithman e-fits, but not the other.

But then that particular efit resembles hundreds of thousands of European men.

I apologise for adding this blunt comment but IMO anyone who still thinks 'Smithman' was Gerry McCann is doomed never to understand what really happened to Madeleine McCann - and when it happened.

by kaz 02.08.16 8:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cmaryholmes wrote:Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the McCanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence? (forgive me if this has already been addressed)
@ Cmaryholmes

I apologise for adding this blunt comment but IMO anyone who still thinks 'Smithman' was Gerry McCann is doomed never to understand what really happened to Madeleine McCann - and when it happened.

And in that last comment Mr Bennett could well lie the raison d'etre for the whole charade. Originally created for a personal agenda perhaps but later built on ( when it could very easily have been demolished by any detective team worthy of the title ) to serve another purpose.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.16 9:03

kaz wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Cmaryholmes wrote:Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the McCanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence? (forgive me if this has already been addressed)
@ Cmaryholmes

I apologise for adding this blunt comment but IMO anyone who still thinks 'Smithman' was Gerry McCann is doomed never to understand what really happened to Madeleine McCann - and when it happened.
And in that last comment Mr Bennett could well lie the raison d'etre for the whole charade. Originally created for a personal agenda perhaps but later built on ( when it could very easily have been demolished by any detective team worthy of the title ) to serve another purpose.

I very much doubt whether Martin Smith did what he did just for a 'personal agenda'.

The fact that ALL members of the Smith family didn't even think of reporting their sighting until after someone Martin Smith knew personally and had 'met several times' was arrested is highly suspicious.

Moreover, as discussed on the 'SMITHMAN' threads, how was it that on 26 May 2007, long before the details of either Sagresman or Tannerman were made public, the three Smiths were able to give a description of the man they claimed to have seen which nearly exactly matched that of Wojchiech Krokowski?- just as Sagresman and Tannerman also did? Everyone needs to address that question.

by Guest 02.08.16 12:50

Cmaryholmes wrote:Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the Mccanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence ? ( forgive me if this has already been addressed)

I can't see any particular resemblance between either of the e-fits and Gerry McCann. It's not difficult, with a little artistic licence, to convince yourself there's a likeness - even if only vague. Some while ago I posted-up an image of ex-DCI Andy Redwood which could be thought to be a likeness to one of the e-fits.

That aside, this issue needs to be woven into the extraordinary report published by The Sunday Times (News International Corporation) in October 2013, following the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann special, that ultimately led to an out of court libel settlement between the McCanns and The Sunday Times.

The same e-fits presented by ex-DCI Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch production, the centre of their focus, said to have been drawn up in collaboration with key witnesses, i.e. the Smith family, were at the centre of the Sunday Times report that claimed the McCanns had concealed vital information from the police for five years. This vital information was claimed to be the e-fits passed to the McCanns by their team of private investigators - Oakley International and instigated by one Henri Exton in collaboration with the Smith family.

Not forgetting the core subject of this entire saga, the disappearance of a three year old child, you need to ask - if Martin Smith and his family assisted with the e-fits prepared under the auspices of Oakley International five years prior to DCI Andy Redwood's revelation moment on Crimewatch, why didn't any of the Smith family run riot knowing that their description of the sighting had been ignored or concealed? Only to emerge five years later on the television? Especially if one of the images was purposely designed to resemble Gerry McCann.

I've always thought there was something very odd about this saga interlude. Quite possibly Henri Exton had issue with the boss, Kevin Halligan (I understand he was owned a considerable sum of money) which may have led to a false claim as reported by the Sunday Times (and very swiftly withdrawn following a snotty missive from lawyers inc. Carter Ruck) but that doesn't explain Martin Smith's position. Of course he knew the Crimewatch e-fits were the same as the Oakley International e-fits - why did he keep quiet knowing the action could be seen to be perverting the course of justice?

by MRNOODLES 02.08.16 19:44

Cmaryholmes wrote:Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the Mccanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence ? ( forgive me if this has already been addressed)

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

Could be anybody from Richard Keys to Joey Jones

by Cmaryholmes 02.08.16 21:51

So it seems. Smith sighting just serves to cause confusion, then.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.16 22:44

Cmaryholmes wrote:So it seems. Smith sighting just serves to cause confusion, then.

If I may say so, I think that's a really excellent one line summary of exactly what the Smith sighting was intended to do from the start.

Sadly, Goncalo Amaral wasn't allowed to stay in post long enough to suss that Sagresman ('Didn't look like a tourist'), Tannerman ('Didn't look like a tourist'), and Smithman ('Didn't look like a tourist'), were all crafted on Wojchiech Krokowski:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Wojchiech Krokowski, photo taken in 2015, eight years after Jane Tanner, Nuno Lourenco
and Martin Smith all described him in their statements to the PJ on 4, 5 and 26 May respectively.
For nearly three years now, a Krokowski look-alike has been 'the centre of our focus' for the
Metropolitan Police, with two different efits of him produced by a family who saw him in the
dark for a few seconds at most, face down and part hidden by the child he was carrying, and
who helped draw them up a whole year after they had each said they would never be able to
recognise him again if they saw him

Amarals' book reveals the unfortunate confusion caused even to him by all three sightings

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.16 23:04

Verdi wrote:
Cmaryholmes wrote:Talk about a tangled web ! By the way, any thoughts on the astonishing resemblance of 'Smithman' to Gerry McCann, which many people have noticed. There is a wonderful photo of the Mccanns in the Crimewatch studio sitting under a gigantic e fit of Martin Smith's sighting. Is this a coincidence ? ( forgive me if this has already been addressed)
Allow me please @ Verdi to make one or two observations:

I can't see any particular resemblance between either of the e-fits and Gerry McCann.

Agreed

It's not difficult, with a little artistic licence, to convince yourself there's a likeness - even if only vague. Some while ago I posted-up an image of ex-DCI Andy Redwood which could be thought to be a likeness to one of the e-fits.

That aside, this issue needs to be woven into the extraordinary report published by The Sunday Times (News International Corporation) in October 2013, following the Crimewatch Madeleine McCann special, that ultimately led to an out of court libel settlement between the McCanns and The Sunday Times.

27 October

The same e-fits presented by ex-DCI Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch production, the centre of their focus, said to have been drawn up in collaboration with key witnesses, i.e. the Smith family, were at the centre of the Sunday Times report that claimed the McCanns had concealed vital information from the police for five years. This vital information was claimed to be the e-fits passed to the McCanns by their team of private investigators - Oakley International and instigated by one Henri Exton in collaboration with the Smith family.

Not forgetting the core subject of this entire saga, the disappearance of a three year old child, you need to ask - if Martin Smith and his family assisted with the e-fits prepared under the auspices of Oakley International five years prior to DCI Andy Redwood's revelation moment on Crimewatch, why didn't any of the Smith family run riot knowing that their description of the sighting had been ignored or concealed? Only to emerge five years later on the television? Especially if one of the images was purposely designed to resemble Gerry McCann.

He has been remarkably silent - just as well as he's been singing from the McCanns' hymn sheet ever since December 2007. And that's a very long time now

I've always thought there was something very odd about this saga interlude. Quite possibly Henri Exton had issue with the boss, Kevin Halligan (I understand he was owed [sp.] a considerable sum of money) which may have led to a false claim as reported by the Sunday Times (and very swiftly withdrawn following a snotty missive from lawyers inc. Carter Ruck) but that doesn't explain Martin Smith's position. Of course he knew the Crimewatch e-fits were the same as the Oakley International e-fits - why did he keep quiet knowing the action could be seen to be perverting the course of justice?

See above. One day, Martin Smith has one heck of a lot of explaining to do. And yes, I suspect that money (or rather, the lack of it) was at the root of all the venom Exton turned on the McCanns after the Crimewatch report. He produced two fabricated efits for the McCanns, pretended to hunt for an abductor in Portugal, no doubt didn't get paid enough for his taste, only to see his erstwhile mate Kevin Halligen a.k.a. Richard Halligen swan off round Italian, American and English 5-star hotels with his squeeze Shirin Trachiotis in tow and a wad of 100,000 fivers (five hundred grand).

I wonder how much the UK taxman saw of that, by the way? Still, like another McCann servant, mentioning no names Antonio Giminez Raso, Halligen got his come-uppance with four years in clink. To quote the Good Book: 'How are the mighty fallen'

by Guest 03.08.16 9:14

April28th wrote:
Verdi wrote:Tanner's faux-pas - what when where was that?

Skip to 10:05

I think this conversation is staged.

Jane gives her view and turns and starts grinning when Gerry starts his bit - @ 10.20

What's funny Jane?

Then at 10.45 when Jane says "ok that's fine" that is a camera edit... there was only one production camera filming so how was this shot possible if continuous filming...

The whole purpose of this piece was to have an "expert" say you get these inconsistencies in major investigations and then shrug shoulders "ok that's fine"... that's out the way let's forget it.

Staged.

This was Jane's real cock-up:

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

winnower1 issues a challenge: Bennett's analysis of the Smith family's actions and statements is 'seriously flawed'. Is it?