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
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 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 01.04.18 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 : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 Guest 01.04.18 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.
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 plebgate 02.04.18 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 : 6729
Activity : 8938
Likes received : 2123
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 02.04.18 11:29

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

Can you 100 % prove your statement
avatar
jazega

Posts : 89
Activity : 142
Likes received : 49
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 Liz Eagles 02.04.18 12:26

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

____________________
PeterMac's FREE e-book
Gonçalo Amaral: The truth of the lie
NEW CMOMM & MMRG Blog
Sir Winston Churchill: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 11153
Activity : 13562
Likes received : 2218
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 02.04.18 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 : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 02.04.18 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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Investigator

Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
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 02.04.18 23:35

Moved to the appropriate thread
avatar
sallypelt

Posts : 4004
Activity : 5319
Likes received : 961
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 Guest 03.04.18 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.
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 jazega 03.04.18 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 : 89
Activity : 142
Likes received : 49
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 03.04.18 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 : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 Guest 03.04.18 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.
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 Phoebe 03.04.18 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 : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 03.04.18 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 : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
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 Guest 03.04.18 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!
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 Guest 03.04.18 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
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 skyrocket 03.04.18 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
Activity : 1537
Likes received : 732
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 03.04.18 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 : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 Guest 03.04.18 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

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 Phoebe 03.04.18 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 : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 Guest 04.04.18 0:23

Phoebe wrote: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.

Again you are presuming rather than taking on board the evidence presented before you. Again you ignore the salient points made time and time again and revert to presuming.

Martin Smith's description of the stranger allegedly witnessed on the streets of Luz given during his witness interview on 26th May 2007, has nothing to do with any presumed "series of photographs or from a line-up" - it is the description he gave which later morphed into the two e-fits produced in collaboration with Oakley International and presented by ex-DCI Andy Redwood during the Crimewatch 2013 production.

Sorry to say but you're just ducking and diving, twisting and turning without coming up with one single tangible reason to support Martin Smith with such conviction, flying in the face of every piece of evidence and information that gives good reason for doubt. You have been asked again and again to justify your conviction with evidence and/or reasoned argument but still nothing.

I applaud you for your relentless endeavours to paint Martin Smith as an outstanding character, not to be questioned (something I would never think of doing as regards a total stranger), but even those who champion your endeavours are equally unable to argue your point with you or for you.
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 Guest 04.04.18 0:47

11-Processos, Volume XI Page 2871 to 2875

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

__________________


From: Long Lindsay
Sent: 20th September, 2007 11:37
CC: Hughes John (DC)
Re: Smith Family

Rec via: TELEPHONE Series: 241 Ident: BC19-8286-1055 20/09/07
Telephone: *********
Locale: Portugal/Out of country
Origin: Mr. Martin Smith 'Ireland

Text: Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me.

Lindsay Long
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
----------

Processos Vol XI Page 2875

Policia Judiciaria

NUIPC 201-070 GALGS

NOTE

On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.

Portimao, 27th September 2007

Signed

Inspector Paiva


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 Guest 04.04.18 1:01

It has already been established that the PJ requested the Irish police to liaise with Martin Smith concerning his identification of Gerry McCann as the stranger he and his family allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007.  

I question why he, Martin Smith, elected to contact Leicestershire Constabulary rather than his local police force, who had already been in communication with him as regards the identification.

I quote from above..

'who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events.'


It would appear from this evidence that Martin Smith volunteered to travel again to Portugal - with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events ???  Now where have I heard something very similar - the McCanns group of friends?  That never materialized either.

Add to that, yet again there is a considerable delay between the event and Martin Smith reporting the incident to the police.  He watched the TV footage of Gerry McCann's return to the UK on 9th September 2007 yet he didn't call the police until 20th September 2007 - so distraught was he that he couldn't sleep?  That's a delay of eleven days !!!  

This doesn't paint Mr Smith in a very favorable light - excuse the pun.
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 Boba Fett 04.04.18 1:47

Personally I have no view on the character of Mr Smith but attach no weight to his "sighting" (or any other, for that matter) on the basis that Madeleine died on Sunday 29th April or shortly thereafter.

I am a non-practising solicitor.  I have no criminal law credentials but have fifteen years of post-qualification experience working in private practice.  During this time I became quite adept at sussing out when people were lying.  It's an essential skill of the job.

I used to believe that MM had been abducted.  It was only after I watched The Truth of the Lie that I changed my mind and from there became fascinated by this case.
Boba Fett
Boba Fett

Posts : 55
Activity : 78
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2018-04-01

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 Guest 04.04.18 2:14

I believe it can be said without fear of contradiction, not one single sighting in the case of missing Madeleine McCann was genuine.

Pranksters, moneymakers and/or paid accomplices - ask the private detectives, they know, they were there.

Remember Brian Kennedy reportedly saying he had a jet ready to propel him over to Morocco just as soon as he got the tip-off from the private dicks that they'd found Madeleine in the lawless lowlands of the Rif mountains?

@Boba Fett - your avatar, is that a helmet or a pair of Y-fronts big grin
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 Boba Fett 04.04.18 2:50

Verdi wrote:@Boba Fett - your avatar, is that a helmet or a pair of Y-fronts big grin

You, Sir, have an eye for detail.  The true answer is that it's whatever you want it to be.
Boba Fett
Boba Fett

Posts : 55
Activity : 78
Likes received : 21
Join date : 2018-04-01

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 Phoebe 04.04.18 12:46

@Verdi. You have been asked time and again to provide one scintilla of actual EVIDENCE which would corroborate your claim that the Smiths lied about their sighting and became involved solely to assist in the cover-up of what happened to Madeleine McCann. You have not done so. You accuse those, who do not agree with your view that the Smiths were involved, of proffering nothing but opinions and speculation, while doing just that yourself!

"Martin Smith's description of the stranger allegedly witnessed on the streets of Luz given during his witness interview on 26th May 2007, has nothing to do with any presumed "series of photographs or from a line-up"


It is an inescapable fact that there exists an established protocol for dealing with eye-witness testimony for the purposes of any future prosecution. In the absence of this protocol, any eye-witness testimony is inadmissible in court. The procedure follows these general guidelines.


1 .Obtaining and documenting an accurate description from the witness prior to conducting any identification procedure.
2. Asking the witness to make a positive identification of a suspect through a photographic spread
3. Ensuring that the witness is able to pick out the suspect from a line - up involving "fillers" with similar physical appearance.


I would be astonished if the P.J. did not seek to deal with the Smith family's eye-witness testimony following the normal protocols for the processing of eye-witness testimony! 
In the Smith case, the P.J. were informed by the Smiths during their May '07 statement that they would not be able to recognise the man from a photograph or if confronted with him - (both being the next stages of supect identification by an eye-witness)


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


Bearing in mind the established protocol for recording eye-witness testimony, it is pretty obvious that Martin Smith volunteered this information in response to a question about his ability to proceed to the next stage of indentification.


Verdi, you seem determined to imply that I have some "skin" in the Smith angle or some sinister agenda! To date, you have asked if I know the Smiths personally and I have responded that I do not. You have suggested that my belief that the Smiths are genuine witnesses springs from the fact that they are Irish and I live in Ireland. I have responded that I don't care if they are Martians and I am, in fact, English. You now accuse me of -


" ducking and diving, twisting and turning without coming up with one single tangible reason to support Martin Smith with such conviction, flying in the face of every piece of evidence and information that gives good reason for doubt. You have been asked again and again to justify your conviction with evidence and/or reasoned argument but still nothing."



Pot- kettle springs to mind.


So here I'll  lay it out for you, ( without the alleged gymnastics)


The description of the man given by the Smiths does NOT match the description of Tannerman or Sagresman. There is absolutely no evidence of collusion between the Smith, Tanner or Lourenco sightings, indeed the EVIDENCE points in completely the other direction.


The Smiths are blamed for not going to the police immediately about what they saw. Meanwhile, there is widespread agreement that no kidnapper, nor Gerry disposing of a child, would walk openly around the town carrying his victim and risking being seen. Don't you think it reasonable that the Smiths came to the exact same conclusion. Half of the Smith party left P de L the very next morning, making it less likely that the remainder would approach the police with the incredible tale of having seen a kidnapper strolling around downtown P de L still carrying his victim nearly an hour after the crime!


The Smiths cooperated fully with the P.J. at every opportunity and Goncalo Amaral found them reliable and credible.


The Smiths named Gerry McCann as the man they had seen carrying a sleeping child at the time of the abduction - this clearly suggests that they are not working for the McCanns. Smith has publicly reiterated his unchanged view on this.


You have previously downplayed the serious offence it is to give false testimony in a police statement. Yet the files clearly show witnesses were made fully aware of their responsibility under law to be truthful


  "I give this testimony with the knowledge that, knowingly making false statements may subject me to legal action." - (sample taken from Balu statement)



I find it totally incredible that ordinary people, like the Smiths, would place their 12 yr old daughter in such a position.


Finally, I make the same request of you. Please show the EVIDENCE (not opinions or speculation) that the Smiths were lying in their evidence or working for those seeking to obstruct the discovery of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.  
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Activity : 3046
Likes received : 1659
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 G-Unit 04.04.18 13:49

The facts are in the PJ Files, within the evidence gathered by the investigation. What people think about those facts isn't evidence and neither is what the media says.
G-Unit
G-Unit

Posts : 358
Activity : 456
Likes received : 92
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

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 04.04.18 15:32

Phoebe wrote:@Verdi. You have been asked time and again to provide one scintilla of actual EVIDENCE which would corroborate your claim that the Smiths lied about their sighting and became involved solely to assist in the cover-up of what happened to Madeleine McCann. You have not done so. You accuse those, who do not agree with your view that the Smiths were involved, of proffering nothing but opinions and speculation, while doing just that yourself!

I have provided documented information from the PJ files - repeatedly. I have nothing more to offer.

All this toing and throing isn't leading anywhere, it's just an unnecessary distraction. I've frankly got better things to do with my time.

NB: Can I ask that you use the quote function when repeating what members have previously said, I find it extremely difficult to understand who's saying what and to whom. It's quite simple, if you need any guidance just ask. Thanks!
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 Basil with a brush 05.04.18 1:34

Thanks Verdi. I'm now going to find it extremely difficult to take anything Boba Fett says seriously.

Please change your underwear eek

____________________
The lying didn't end it. The insult to my intelligence did.
Basil with a brush
Basil with a brush

Posts : 129
Activity : 242
Likes received : 101
Join date : 2017-01-26

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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