The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Mm11

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Regist10

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty FOI Operation Grange

Post by willowthewisp on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 16:40

@plebgate wrote:I cannot understand why Met police have not interviewed Mr. about the Smith sighting.  Surely any info. given by the Smiths should have included a re-enactment of the night as Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Mr.

With that statement lying in the files it beggars (my) belief that the whole lot of them have not been re-interviewed by SY to try and ascertain times etc. to show that it could not possibly have been him.

Over 50% sure that it was Mr. should, imo, warrant a reconstruction of events and at the very least reinterviewing of all the Tapas crew.

As for FOI's load of Bull as per.

Thank you Tony for all you continue to do for Maddie.
Hi Plebgate,Special friends still being protected by their"Guardian Angels of Government"until it may be time to scrub their very dirty Hands clean,either leaving"Patsies"to take the can or Parties to be found guilty at a much later stage?
willowthewisp
willowthewisp

Posts : 3277
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by inspectorgadget on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 18:35

@plebgate wrote:I cannot understand why Met police have not interviewed Mr. about the Smith sighting.  Surely any info. given by the Smiths should have included a re-enactment of the night as Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Mr.

With that statement lying in the files it beggars (my) belief that the whole lot of them have not been re-interviewed by SY to try and ascertain times etc. to show that it could not possibly have been him.

Hard to see why the Smiths would be interviewed about  a reenactment when the PJ/SY are staying well away from the Mccanns and the tapas lot. A reenactmment on that limited scale would be a mockery. On top of which , the tapas lot refused a previous request to participate in a reenactment and I don't see them answering any questions after all this time .  IMO, SY will exhaust all possible connections to an abduction and when the options run out,  shelve the case when we have a Home secretary with the necessary gonads.
avatar
inspectorgadget

Posts : 15
Join date : 2018-02-22

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 20:53

Extract from the McCanns libel lawyers press release dated 3rd October 2014..

The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011, shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Guest on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 21:51

The SundayTimes December 28th 2013.


In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."


The Efits were withheld but for less than the five years as previously stated by the Sunday Times hence the paltry payment.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 21:55

@Phoebe wrote:After G.A. was removed from the case the Portuguese police decided to avoid getting further involved with the Smiths over their claim that the man they had seen that night was Gerry. The P.J. cancelled preparations for the Smiths to return in order to make an official identification on Portuguese soil, instead passing the buck to the Irish Gardai.

I wonder at the rationale behind Gonçalo Amaral's thinking on this point, as I've said in the past, I can see nothing to be gained by Martin Smith returning to Portugal just to tell them again that he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry McCann he saw on the night of 3rd May 2007.  A reenactment would have been useless, the location was not the point in question, it was the identity of the stranger fleetingly seen in partial lighting and later in September, said to be recognized only by the way McCann was carrying his child.   Smith's return to Portugal at that stage would have been a total waste of time and money.

In fairness to Dr Amaral, he was in ignorance of a lot of what was going on behind the scenes back in the UK.

Passing the buck to the Irish police - what an extraordinary notion.  Do you have any evidence to verify your statement?


 IMO, it is obvious that the P.J. were put under political pressure to drop the Smith angle. Why would this be the case if the Smiths were  actually allies of team McCann and their Gov. supporters.

As it's only an opinion your question remains unanswerable.

 The British police, having returned to the U.K., were no longer  involved in actively investigating Madeleine's disappearance. 
What other opportunity remained then, for the Smiths to get the description of the man they had seen included in ANY investigation about this child's disappearance. 

The British police were not actively nor inactively investigating Madeleine's disappearance, they have no jurisdiction to investigate Madeleine's disappearance - not then not now.  Representatives from Leicestershire Constabulary were seconded to Portugal to support the PJ investigation (it remains a mystery as to exactly why) and also to act as a liaison between Portugal and the UK.  Leicestershire Constabulary continued in this role until the Metropolitan Police, Operation Grange, were assigned to 'review' the case back in May 2011.

The Smiths had every opportunity to convey the description of the man they saw to an official police force.  No excuses there!


The P.J. no longer sought it, the U.K. police weren't involved and certainly did not issue an invitation to the Smiths to come to the U.K. to help draw up any such e-fit. although they were fully aware of the Smith sighting.

There is no requirement for the Smiths to travel to the UK to participate in drawing up an e-fit or any other mode.  Such things can be done locally, it's not passing the buck, it's routine policing.

The only avenue available to the Smiths was to cooperate with those who DID ask them to help create an e-fit of the suspect. In the absence of any other option, they understandably took this one chance.

Sorry but that is just hypothetical nonsense.


 Just think what would have happened if the Smiths had refused.

What would have happened?  One minute you say Smith had no alternative but to consult the McCanns private detectives and in the next breath you imply some sort of threatening behaviour.  You can't have it both ways.

 In all likelihood Smithman would have faded into obscurity and we, the public, would never have seen the e-fits of the man they helped to depict - e-fits which bear such a resemblance to Gerry that it caused much sarcastic reaction and comment when Gerry was pictured in a  T.V. studio, seated beneath the image of a suspect which looked uncannily like himself!

Smithman has faded into obscurity - despite ex-DCI Andy Redwood making it the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, in collaboration with the BBC.  Had Martin Smith, or a member of his family, followed the right course by collaborating with an official police force in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  

The Smiths had every opportunity to work with the Irish police and the UK police, in the guise of Leicestershire Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police - he declined to avail himself of the opportunities.  As the old saying goes - actions speak louder than words.


____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Phoebe on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 23:03

 @ Verdi 


"Passing the buck to the Irish police - what an extraordinary notion.  Do you have any evidence to verify your statement?"


From " The Truth Of The Lie" -


"After my departure the P.J. were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later"


 As to my opinion that the P.J. avoided further contact with the Smiths because of political pressure -


"This case has involved too much politics and too little police" - Goncalo  Amaral  in interview with "Daggbladet Pluss."


"The Smiths had every opportunity to convey the description of the man they saw to an official police force.  No excuses there!"......."The Smiths had every opportunity to work with the Irish police..."


Please indicate where you found the evidence that the Irish Garda Siochana offered to in any way involve itself directly in the investigation into the disappearance of a British subject in Portugal.


"There is no requirement for the Smiths to travel to the UK to participate in drawing up an e-fit or any other mode.  Such things can be done locally, it's not passing the buck, it's routine policing" 


Where is the evidence that the Garda Siochana were prepared to assist the Smiths in creating e-fits of the man they had seen in Portugal on May 3rd '07.  Or perhaps you are suggesting that the Smiths would  sit at home in their kitchen and draw up an e-fit at a remove using some form of video conference between Drogheda  and, er, where exactly.
 Which U.K force would they try to link up to. None had shown any interest in contacting the Smiths let alone in interviewing them or getting e-fits from them! Can you imagine what the reaction would be now among Smith-cynics if they had agreed to draw up e-fits without being physically present for the process!


 "Just think what would have happened if the Smiths had refused..
.you imply some sort of threatening behaviour."


I certainly do not, in any way, imply that the Smiths were threatened by those requesting their cooperation with e-fits! What I am alluding to is how those determined to paint the Smiths as being part of the cover-up would have reacted to any refusal on their part to give further details about what they witnessed that night.


 As for Smithman having faded into obscurity - Thanks to the Smiths and those e-fits he has not. In fact very many people who follow this case still continue to regard the Smiths' evidence as one of the most important  pieces of evidence.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1309
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Sun 1 Apr 2018 - 23:53

@Phoebe #31

You've made it impossible for me to respond to this.

Your formatting is totally confused, plus as far as I can make out, you've plucked out odd wording here and there, taking everything out of context.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by plebgate on Mon 2 Apr 2018 - 9:25

IMO a reconstruction would be beneficial and I believe that the Smiths' statements lying on file could be a way of getting one.

Ok so the timelines might be disputed after such a long time but there is the ripped book cover which could be used to maybe "jog" memories and actually show that it would have been impossible for the Smith sighting to have been Mr.

Who knows what any of the Tapas crew might remember even after all these years?

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
roll
avatar
plebgate

Posts : 6476
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by jazega on Mon 2 Apr 2018 - 11:29

@aquila wrote:I repeat. The Smith sighting is bogus.

Can you 100 % prove your statement
avatar
jazega

Posts : 77
Join date : 2017-03-08

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by aquila on Mon 2 Apr 2018 - 12:26

No I cannot, anymore than you can prove your belief in the Smith sighting.
aquila
aquila

Posts : 9420
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Phoebe on Mon 2 Apr 2018 - 12:30

@ Verdi - I shall try to make it clearer.

In a post up-thread, I referenced the decision taken by the P.J. (after G.A. was removed from the case) to cancel arrangements for the Smiths to return to Portugal in order to further investigate their identification of Gerry McCann as the man they had seen carrying the child on May 3rd. Instead, the P.J. requested the Irish Garda Siochana to take an additional statement from them re this development. IMO this amounts to "Passing the buck" re. the investigation of this important development.
 Had the Smiths returned as planned, it would have been the task of the P.J. to thoroughly investigate this development. This would have afforded the P.J. the opportunity to question the Smiths directly and in detail about why they had identified Gerry. It would also have afforded an opportunity for e-fits to be drawn up (should that be deemed necessary) by official police specialists. Instead, the P.J. never, ever again interacted face to face with the Smiths but passed the responsibility for taking the statement (which identified Gerry) to the Irish police. This statement was taken, forwarded and included in the files but saw no further action by the P.J.
The Irish Garda Siochana had no investigative role in the disappearance of a British subject in Portugal, beyond obliging the P.J by forwarding Martin Smith's statement to them as requested. There was no suggestion of the Irish Garda Siochana becoming involved in the investigation or in the drawing up of e-fits in a case in which they had no role or authority.
The Smiths, who had been willing to return to Portugal for a second  P.J. interview, then cooperated fully with the Garda S. who added a footnote that Smith seemed, in the opinion of the officer who recorded this statement, a genuine witness.
Since the P.J showed no further interest in pursuing the Smith  identification of Gerry, and no other police force had contacted them re the matter, how were the Smiths supposed to instigate further action. 
You claimed this  "could have been done locally". By whom. The Garda S were not involved and had no authority to pursue the matter, the P.J. sent no requests for any further action involving the Smiths, nor did the British police who had been "assisting" in  Portugal seek their assistance then or at any time since, even when preparing to use their e-fits on "Crime Watch".
In the absence of police action what else could the Smiths do. Nothing, until they were requested to cooperate with creating e-fits for the private investigators. They cooperated and drew up e-fits of the man they had seen - e-fits which look very like Gerry.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1309
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Tony Bennett on Mon 2 Apr 2018 - 23:23

Two days ago I posed this question:

On 20 September 2007, Martin Smith made this solemn statement to an Irish police officer: "I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard [Gerald] McCann that I met that night carrying a child".

@ Phoebe, can you give me one really good, convincing, wholly persuasive argument as to why, barely three months later, Martin Smith was working for the McCann Team, talking to their investigation co-ordinator, Brian Kennedy, talking to Metodo 3 who were working for them, talking to Oakley International, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton who were all also employed by the McCanns?


-------------------

I have seen several long replies by @ Phoebe, but not one that comes remotely near to answering the question.

Instead @ Phoebe asserts that Martin Smith is an 'ordinary man'.

An ordinary man living in Praia da Luz on the very night that Madeleine McCann is reported missing, who claim he sees, together with eight other members of his extended family, a lone man at 10pm at night carrying a young blonde girl clad only in pyjamas, does not - amid a 24/7 medias blitz over the next two weeks, fail to report his sighting to the police.

An ordinary man does not wait to be reminded by his son 13 days later, who thinks he might have been dreaming about this sighting.

An ordinary man who has in effect completely forgotten about this sighting does not jump into action the moment someone he knows well has been made a formal suspect, and suddenly say with crystal clarity: "It definitely wasn't him".

An ordinary man, over four months after a sighting which he admits was only for few seconds, in the dark and with weak street lighting, and who says he would never recognise him again if he saw him, does not claim to be sure it was Gerry McCann based solely on 'the way he was carrying his son'. 

An ordinary man, who has told police he is up to 80% sure that Gerry McCann was the abductor, does not then go and work for the McCann Team barely three months later.     

@ lemonbutter speaks of 'the integrity of Martin Smith's testimony'. What integrity? His statements and actions are all over the place - see the 'SMITHMAN' threads.

@ polyenne is unhappy with the word 'collusion'. OK, let us use another word: 'coilaboration'. I have demonstrated that Martin Smith has a 10-year track record of collaborating with the McCann Team, Operation Grange, and even the BBC. He and his wife have publicly supported the abduction theory and expressed public sympathy for the McCanns.

@ jazega asks if @ aquila has '100-% proof that 'Smithman is bogus'.

I therefore invite any or all of the above to explain, once again, in plain and simple language:        
  
Can you give me one really good, convincing, wholly persuasive argument as to why, barely three months  after declaring that Smithman was Gerry McCann, Martin Smith was working for the McCann Team, talking to their investigation co-ordinator, Brian Kennedy, talking to Metodo 3 who were working for them, talking to Oakley International, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton who were all also employed by the McCanns - and drew up the efits now used by Operation Grange and the BBC to sustain the abduction theory?

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15497
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by sallypelt on Mon 2 Apr 2018 - 23:35

Moved to the appropriate thread
avatar
sallypelt

Posts : 3850
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 1:25

@Phoebe #36

1.  You actually said that the PJ were passing the buck, when they decided not the persue the return of Martin Smith to Portugal.  You have also said there was no request/requirement for the Irish police to become involved which clearly contradicts your passing the buck comment.  If the PJ requested the Irish police, by rogatory,  to re-interview Martin Smith and/or any of his family then they were involved weren't they?

The police don't get to pick and choose who or what they investigate, inter-police national and international protocol dictates - in short, they have no choice but to cooperate if requested.  If by example, the police at Witney Bay are investigating a crime and needs to interview a witness residing at Wookey Hole, they wouldn't send one of their own officers down to Somerset, they would arrange for a local force to contact and interview the witness - hence my comment about Martin Smith being dealt with locally.

2.  There was nothing for the PJ to thoroughly investigate, Martin Smith said he saw television footage of Gerry McCann on his return to the UK, and recognized him with 60-80% certainty purely by the way he was carrying his child - probably the most common way of carrying a child of that age group.  How can you elaborate on that?  Martin Smith and his son and daughter had already returned to Portugal in May 2007 at the expense of the Portuguese, to give their original statements, three weeks after Madeleine's alleged disappearance, how could they possibly justify another visit by Martin Smith to re-affirm such flimsy evidence?  The most sensible/logical/economical mode of operation was to refer the new evidence to Martin Smith's home ground and/or the police in England assigned to coordinate the case from their end - that is precisely what they did do.

The Irish police have a responsibility to respond to a request for assistance by another national/international force, they do have a role to play - they must cooperate, they're in no position to refuse.

3.  The opinion of an officer of the Irish police as regards the integrity of a witness has no bearing - it is but an off the cuff opinion, not an official declaration.

4.  If the PJ and/or their counterparts in Ireland thought there was any reason to pursue Martin Smith's revelation moment, they would have done so.  As they didn't I think it can be safely concluded that they didn't think it worthwhile.

5.  If the PJ, the Irish police and the English police thought Martin Smith's 60-80% assurance it was Gerry McCann he and his family saw on the night of 3rd May 2007, thought it not worthy of  further attention, there was no requirement for Martin Smith to do anything.  If the police required further detail they would have contacted him as they didn't it becomes clear they had no reason so to do.

Look at it from another angle. Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure the stranger in the night of 3rd May 2007 was Gerry McCann - why the heck would the official police need to draw-up an artist impression or e-fit of a living person identified by the witness, if they took it seriously? Why not just haul Gerry McCann in for questioning, rather than leaving it a few years before issuing before the world for identification purposes? The McCanns private detectives however, were anxious for Martin Smith to collaborate with their bogus investigation and Martin Smith willingly complied.

So now what didn't happen has been cleared up, we now have what did happen.  In brief, Martin Smith was contacted by the McCanns private detectives, as early as January 2008 by way of Metodo3 and later by Oakley International through the auspices of the McCanns wealthy financial backer, the double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy.  Martin Smith worked with the latter to produce two e-fits which were apparently shared with Leicester police, the PJ and more recently Operation Grange - so we are led to believe.  The two e-fits were the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, where ex-DCI Andy Redwood promoted them as persons of interest to the investigation.

If you think the Portuguese and Operation Grange are running scared because one of the e-fits is said to resemble Gerry McCann - think again!  If one or both e-fits looked remotely like Gerry McCann, the McCanns private detectives would most assuredly have had nothing to do with the production nor the promotion afterwards.  Remember, the private detectives hired by the McCanns all turned out to be a bunch of criminals - I'm in no doubt this was known thoroughly when they were hired, indeed that would be the very reason they were hired.

As I said previously, has it never occurred to you that Martin Smith and his family's alleged sighting was nothing but another reinforcement of the abduction theory?  Just what the McCanns needed back in May 2007 and just what ex-DCI Andy Redwood needed for the Crimewatch 2013 production!!!

Cunning eh?  There is nothing clever about this extensive operation, just cunning pure and simple.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by jazega on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 9:54

@Verdi wrote:@Phoebe #36

1.  You actually said that the PJ were passing the buck, when they decided not the persue the return of Martin Smith to Portugal.  You have also said there was no request/requirement for the Irish police to become involved which clearly contradicts your passing the buck comment.  If the PJ requested the Irish police, by rogatory,  to re-interview Martin Smith and/or any of his family then they were involved weren't they?

The police don't get to pick and choose who or what they investigate, inter-police national and international protocol dictates - in short, they have no choice but to cooperate if requested.  If by example, the police at Witney Bay are investigating a crime and needs to interview a witness residing at Wookey Hole, they wouldn't send one of their own officers down to Somerset, they would arrange for a local force to contact and interview the witness - hence my comment about Martin Smith being dealt with locally.

2.  There was nothing for the PJ to thoroughly investigate, Martin Smith said he saw television footage of Gerry McCann on his return to the UK, and recognized him with 60-80% certainty purely by the way he was carrying his child - probably the most common way of carrying a child of that age group.  How can you elaborate on that?  Martin Smith and his son and daughter had already returned to Portugal in May 2007 at the expense of the Portuguese, to give their original statements, three weeks after Madeleine's alleged disappearance, how could they possibly justify another visit by Martin Smith to re-affirm such flimsy evidence?  The most sensible/logical/economical mode of operation was to refer the new evidence to Martin Smith's home ground and/or the police in England assigned to coordinate the case from their end - that is precisely what they did do.

The Irish police have a responsibility to respond to a request for assistance by another national/international force, they do have a role to play - they must cooperate, they're in no position to refuse.

3.  The opinion of an officer of the Irish police as regards the integrity of a witness has no bearing - it is but an off the cuff opinion, not an official declaration.

4.  If the PJ and/or their counterparts in Ireland thought there was any reason to pursue Martin Smith's revelation moment, they would have done so.  As they didn't I think it can be safely concluded that they didn't think it worthwhile.

5.  If the PJ, the Irish police and the English police thought Martin Smith's 60-80% assurance it was Gerry McCann he and his family saw on the night of 3rd May 2007, thought it not worthy of  further attention, there was no requirement for Martin Smith to do anything.  If the police required further detail they would have contacted him as they didn't it becomes clear they had no reason so to do.

Look at it from another angle.  Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure the stranger in the night of 3rd May 2007 was Gerry McCann - why the heck would the official police need to draw-up an artist impression or e-fit of a living person identified by the witness, if they took it seriously?  Why not just haul Gerry McCann in for questioning, rather than leaving it a few years before issuing before the world for identification purposes?  The McCanns private detectives however, were anxious for Martin Smith to collaborate with their bogus investigation and Martin Smith willingly complied.  

So now what didn't happen has been cleared up, we now have what did happen.  In brief, Martin Smith was contacted by the McCanns private detectives, as early as January 2008 by way of Metodo3 and later by Oakley International through the auspices of the McCanns wealthy financial backer, the double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy.  Martin Smith worked with the latter to produce two e-fits which were apparently shared with Leicester police, the PJ and more recently Operation Grange - so we are led to believe.  The two e-fits were the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, where ex-DCI Andy Redwood promoted them as persons of interest to the investigation.

If you think the Portuguese and Operation Grange are running scared because one of the e-fits is said to resemble Gerry McCann - think again!  If one or both e-fits looked remotely like Gerry McCann, the McCanns private detectives would most assuredly have had nothing to do with the production nor the promotion afterwards.  Remember, the private detectives hired by the McCanns all turned out to be a bunch of criminals - I'm in no doubt this was known thoroughly when they were hired, indeed that would be the very reason they were hired.

As I said previously, has it never occurred to you that Martin Smith and his family's alleged sighting was nothing but another reinforcement of the abduction theory?  Just what the McCanns needed back in May 2007 and just what ex-DCI Andy Redwood needed for the Crimewatch 2013 production!!!

Cunning eh?  There is nothing clever about this extensive operation, just cunning pure and simple.

You wrote "so we are led to believe".Who has lead you ?
From some of your statements,if true, it would appear to me that you must know Martin Smith personally,yes or no ?
avatar
jazega

Posts : 77
Join date : 2017-03-08

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Phoebe on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 12:31

1.   Goncalo Amaral clearly states his opinion that failure to ensure the Smiths' return to Portugal in the matter of identification of Gerry McCann negatively impacted and delayed the investigation of this development. The Irish G.S. were requested to do nothing more than take Smith's statement and forward it. Foreign police only investigate when they are requested to do and then only comply with exactly such requests. They have no power to decide if further investigation is warranted.

2. While the Portuguese police showed no interest (after G.A.'s removal) in further investigating the Smith's identification of Gerry yet they showed a marked interest in pursuing investigations into nonsense such as "Cooperman" and the strangers seen by others such as Tamsin S. et al, despite the fact that these were merely "spotted" in the area some time before any crime was committed!

Fax
Date: 16th January 2008
From: Stuart Prior

To: Ricardo Paiva

Subject: Forward sketch

Annexes: BK ? MM present at (sic) Jan 08, Gail Cooper (2) doc, Paul Gordon (3) doc, Trudy dawkin (2) doc, tanner description 2 doc, 
Summary of second statement Tanner doc.
Ricardo,

Please get back to me as soon as possible with your instructions."


3. The P.J. were fully aware of the activity in the investigation of Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3. Apparently without any objections from them re. this ongoing involvement of private investigation-


 "What are you planning around Mr Kennedy or the private investigation firm......I will need to get back to the McCanns as he asked to be updated, how would Paolo want this conducting and what information am to provide them They are very excited about this potential lead."


From the P.J. files Volume XVa -


                                ACTION PLAN


1. Launch a nationwide search, wit the support of a central telephone number with international language capabilities,managed by M3 to identify and locate the man in the sketches. All details obtained to be passed to the P.J.
2. Check all police records - including statements taken from the 12 yr old girl, who reported sightings of a strange man in May 2007
3. Portuguese Police TO COLLABORATE WITH
   1. Interpol
   2. Spanish Police
   3. Moroccan Police
   4. British Police
   5. METDODO 3

To suggest that there was no investigation by the British police at this time is nonsense. They were busy as bees, following up and investigating everything BUT the Smith sighting and subsequent identification.
It further appears that the P.J. had no objections to the role M3 had assumed in the investigation, why therefore should the Smiths have been expected to refuse when they were asked to work with private investigators!

15 Processos Vol XV Page 4024

Fax (in English)

From: Ricardo Paiva

Sent: 16th January 2008, 17.52

To: Prior Stuart

Subject: Madeleine McCann's Investigation

Hello, Stuart,

After a meeting with the Director, Mr Paolo Rebelo where this matter was discussed, we kindly request to your police, the following procedures:

- re-interview PAUL GORDON and show him GAIL COOPER'S sketch;

- re-interview GAIL COOPER, regarding the following points:

- if she formally confirms her statement given to Brian Kennedy?
- If she still confirms her previous statement given to the police back in the 21st of May, she hasn't referred that she has seen the same man two days later at the beach near the RESTAURANT PARAISO, standing near the Mark Warner's children?


It is clear the P.J. and British police were quite happy to chase leads with only the flimsiest possible association with Madeleine's disappearance, aided and abetted by Brian Kennedy and private investigators, yet they showed no further interest in the Smiths who had actually seen a man carrying a sleeping child, matching Madeleine's description, just around the abduction time. No e fit requests, although they were happy to offer others such as Gail Cooper the opportunity to create revised e-fits. It stinks to high heaven!
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1309
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 12:34

@jazega wrote:
You wrote "so we are led to believe".Who has lead you ?

Freedom of Information response from the Home Office [the subject of this thread] - 29th March 2018


These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.

Extract from the McCanns libel lawyers press release [posted up-page on 1st March 2018] - 3rd October 2014..


The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011, shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Phoebe on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 12:51

@ Verdi  and @ Tony Bennett.   "In brief, Martin Smith was contacted by the McCanns private detectives, as early as January 2008 by way of Metodo3 and later by Oakley International through the auspices of the McCanns wealthy financial backer, the double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy.  Martin Smith worked with the latter to produce two e-fits which were apparently shared with Leicester police, the PJ and more recently Operation Grange - so we are led to believe.  The two e-fits were the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, where ex-DCI Andy Redwood promoted them as persons of interest to the investigation."


As I have shown in an above post the P.J. were made fully aware of the activities of Brian Kennedy and private investigators and offered no objection. Your suspicions about the Smiths cite their cooperation with Kennedy and private investigators. Why should they not cooperate when the P.J. and British police were, themselves, accepting of the role played by Kennedy and private investigators!
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1309
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty FOI-Operation Grange

Post by willowthewisp on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 14:44

@Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi  and @ Tony Bennett.   "In brief, Martin Smith was contacted by the McCanns private detectives, as early as January 2008 by way of Metodo3 and later by Oakley International through the auspices of the McCanns wealthy financial backer, the double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy.  Martin Smith worked with the latter to produce two e-fits which were apparently shared with Leicester police, the PJ and more recently Operation Grange - so we are led to believe.  The two e-fits were the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, where ex-DCI Andy Redwood promoted them as persons of interest to the investigation."


As I have shown in an above post the P.J. were made fully aware of the activities of Brian Kennedy and private investigators and offered no objection. Your suspicions about the Smiths cite their cooperation with Kennedy and private investigators. Why should they not cooperate when the P.J. and British police were, themselves, accepting of the role played by Kennedy and private investigators!
Hi Phoebe,congratulations on your Tenacity on the supplying of information(PJ) in regard to the"Smith Family",collaboration,collusion as to what they may have witnessed on 3 May 2007.

Regardless as to whether Mr Smith and his Son were approached by,be it Brian Kennedy,Metedo3,"Leicestershire Police" who must bore the main thrux of the"Sighting",when (GA) removed from the case,but seemingly as per normal failed to make contact with the Smith family as per Joint"Police Operation,Portugal PJ", Not Brian Kennedy nor Metedo3 aught to have made contact with a potential witness,as per the"Legal status" of the Portugal PJ,joint Investigation,but Leicestershire Police failed to do so?

So any failing as to whether Robert Murat,"Identity"by three of the Tapas 7/9,Smithman sighting, 3 May 2007,the Father knowing by sight(Mr Smith) at least what Robert Murat looked like,it is the(Patsy)moment that causes the problems?
eg,Brian Kennedy and his Legal Team have a secret meeting with Robert Murat's relatives and legal Team to thrash out a,Deal!


Now if Brian Kennedy had instructed Metedo3,to then make contact with Mr Smith and his family over the alleged sighting incident,that Leicestershire Police were aware of,but then chose Not to Investigate!

So Brian Kennedy has a meeting with both Mr Smith and his family and Robert Murat,where Mr Smith and Son
are to be the "Sacrificial Lambs" for Official Police failures as potential witnesses?

Mean while Mr Brian Kennedy has never been"Officially Interviewed" by any Police Force on his conduct over the missing Madeleine McCann case,due to having a very close working relationship with the PR Mouth piece Clarence Mitchell (Crime Watch claims,Australia Comms-conn tour) and the McCann family over the past Eleven Years,think about that One Operation Grange,then when the light goes out,its either time to put more Money into Operation Grange meter clock or shut it down?

PS,If the"Smith Family" sighting is discounted as by Verdi,Antony Bennett,aquila,as not to have happened or invented,then why would a UK Police Force,Operation Grange,then invent an hypothesis of a "Revelation moment" moving time frame from five minutes to abduct a person to nearly One hr,then also invent clothing and statements from the "Fictious" creche Dad,DCI Andy Redwood?
Who also picked up the costs of the McCann family,then paid for the PR which later on came from the public donations to the"Find Madeleine Fund"?

One not so mysterious Benefactor to the McCann Family Mr Brian Kennedy,with close connections to a legal Law firm Carter Ruck and deponents representing the McCann Family in the high Court in London?
willowthewisp
willowthewisp

Posts : 3277
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 15:43

@Phoebe wrote:As I have shown in an above post the P.J. were made fully aware of the activities of Brian Kennedy and private investigators and offered no objection. Your suspicions about the Smiths cite their cooperation with Kennedy and private investigators. Why should they not cooperate when the P.J. and British police were, themselves, accepting of the role played by Kennedy and private investigators!

Private Detectives by Gonçalo Amaral
8 years ago

In Portugal, as far as criminal investigation is concerned, the activity of private detectives is forbidden. Despite that, in a famous media-exposed case, detectives have passed through here, some British, others Spanish.

At least since the 10th of May 2007, said detectives operated in our country under the silence from our authorities. They were looking for a mysteriously disappeared English child. After two years and several months, they found nothing. Without questioning the investigation methods and their police logics, it was easy to find a scapegoat.

~~~~~~

Again I have to wonder at what the Portuguese police were thinking when breaking the law in their own country.

That aside, despite the McCanns and their team trying to divert the official investigation by creating bogus sightings across the globe, as far abroad as the Antipodes, they all amounted to nothing as regards progressing the investigation - indeed, no more than the various psychic visions dragged into the web of deception. The PJ, at least on the ground level, realised they were being duped but unfortunately for the police they have no option but to follow up 'credible' sightings connected to any criminal investigation.

However, the various sightings taken on board by the PJ and subsequent pursuance thereof, can hardly be compared to Martin Smith identifying Gerry McCann descending the steps of an aircraft on their return to the UK, with 60-80% certainty and only by the way his was carrying a child - the most common way of carrying a child of that age and later, working with private detectives to produce two e-fits that look nothing like Gerry McCann. As I said previously, Martin Smith allegedly thought Gerry McCann to be the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007 - why did he assist the production of e-fits, why not use the televised footage of Gerry McCann. Because maybe he was only 60-80% sure? I do wonder what was going on beneath 60% and above 80%.

A sighting of a distraught child being hauled through the streets of Belgium, or a handed over to a strange woman in Barcelona, or bundled into a taxi in the middle of Marakesh requires extensive policing, one man claiming Gerry McCann to be the stranger he saw in Luz blah blah blah doesn't!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 15:53


Intercalary report by Inspector Joao Carlos - 31.01.2008


As reported on folio 1606 and following pages, a new element appeared, brought by an Irish family, who told of a sighting on 3rd May 2007 at about 21.55 of a man carrying a child who was walking down a road that leads to a zone near to P da L. They did not manage to recognise the man, however Martin Smith, in subsequent information, folio 2871, said that judging by the bearing it could have been Gerald McCann, which upon initial analysis did not seem very viable to us given the time period indicated. However, new questioning of Martin Smith by the Irish authorities was requested in order to check the reliability of his information. A reply is awaited.
~~~~~~

The response..

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by skyrocket on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 17:09

@Verdi - I'm glad that you've posted Sargeant Hogan's letter in full on this thread, across from the other Smithman thread. I tend to have problems pasting things on here using my MacBook (probably me). Thanks.

As I said over on the other thread, it has to be significant that a police officer specifically states that Martin Smith has been unwilling to get involved in creating efits with the McCanns/Kennedy - note the date of Hogan's letter is 30 January 2008 and it is not sent through until the 19 February 2008.

The Smith/McCluskey identifications of Gerry McCann are linked IMO.

I think it is possible that McCluskey didn't ID Gerry and that his 12 September statement was altered to include the identification AFTER Martin Smith had come forward with his suspicions later in September.

(More detail in other Smith thread currently active if anyone interested).
skyrocket
skyrocket

Posts : 755
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Phoebe on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 19:13

 @ Verdi  "Martin Smith allegedly thought Gerry McCann to be the stranger he and his family witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007 - why did he assist the production of e-fits, why not use the televised footage of Gerry McCann. Because maybe he was only 60-80% sure? I do wonder what was going on beneath 60% and above 80"


It was not up to Martin Smith, as an ordinary, civilian witness to decide how the information around his sighting or identification of Gerry McCann was handled. I doubt if "Using televised footage of Gerry McCann" to identify the person he saw would be legally permissible.  He had already explained that it was seeing Gerry on BBC News that triggered his memory of the man he had seen on the night of May 3rd. He was being asked to help create a photo-fit of THAT man, not Gerry arriving in the U.K. As I said previously, neither the P.J. nor their British counterparts seem to have objected to the involvement of Metodo 3 or Brian Kennedy in the investigation. I'm sure Smith was made aware that those seeking the e-fit were "working with the police", indeed, one was ex-police. In those circumstances if I were the Smiths, I too would not refuse to cooperate.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1309
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Verdi on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 22:01

@Phoebe wrote: He had already explained that it was seeing Gerry on BBC News that triggered his memory of the man he had seen on the night of May 3rd. He was being asked to help create a photo-fit of THAT man, not Gerry arriving in the U.K

Excerpt from Martin Smith's witness statement - 26th May 2007

— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.

So that description of the stranger Martin Smith and his family allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007, morphs into this ..

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 A7b17e7e71984e9cae71d53154d28204

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 2753


____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 13683
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018) - Page 2 Empty Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

Post by Phoebe on Tue 3 Apr 2018 - 23:24

 @ Verdi"— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. "


I presume that in May, when the Smiths returned to Portugal to give their statements, Smith was asked, as per normal practice, if he would be able to pick out the man he had seen from a series of photographs or from a line-up. Obviously he felt he would be unable to make a positive I.D. in such circumstances. Later however, having seen wall to wall coverage with images of the McCanns and with the newspapers' lurid headlines proclaiming their guilt, I believe the Smiths memories became affected by bias. This was exacerbated by seeing Gerry carrying a child in an identical manner in a form of "action replay." He  became convinced that it was Gerry he had seen. Such memory bias is a well-recognised factor in eye witness testimony. Personally, I believe it unlikely (although not completely impossible) that it was Gerry they saw. This however, does not make the Smiths part of some dastardly conspiracy, merely ordinary witnesses with ordinary fallibility.


. "Each time you relive the crime, either out loud to an investigator or in your own head, that distorted memory is strengthened." Maria Zaragoza, psychologist specialising in eye witness testimony Live Science Contributor | September 22, 2011 06:39pm.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1309
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum