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 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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 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.

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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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 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



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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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 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.

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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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 on 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.
avatar
Boba Fett

Posts : 55
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2018-04-01

Back to top Go down

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 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

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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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 on 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.
avatar
Boba Fett

Posts : 55
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2018-04-01

Back to top Go down

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 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.  

Phoebe

Posts : 1107
Reputation : 1334
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

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 on 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.
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 348
Reputation : 89
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

Back to top Go down

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 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!

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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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 on 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.
avatar
Basil with a brush

Posts : 122
Reputation : 97
Join date : 2017-01-26

Back to top Go down

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

Post by lemonbutter on 05.04.18 9:19

#36  @TonyBennett
Tony, you have asked me to read the ‘SMITHMAN’ threads. Let me assure you – I have read all the ‘SMITHMAN’ threads, which is why I make comments about Martin Smith and his family’s testimony.
I do not share your opinion that the Smith family fabricated their sighting of a man carrying a young female child on the night of 3rd May 2007. It is up to you to prove your theory of fabricated testimony by the Smiths, and in my opinion, you have not done that. I understand that many members agree with you, but surely, I am entitled to believe the Smith family – along with many professional people who take a keen interest in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (such as Goncalo Amaral, Paulo Reis, Mark Harrison, Pat Brown and Gemma O’Doherty, to name just a few).
I cannot add to the many excellent arguments posted by Phoebe, so maybe you could graciously accept that some members disagree with you, based on our interpretation of the public facts and PJ files regarding the Smith family testimony.

lemonbutter

Posts : 45
Reputation : 71
Join date : 2017-03-01
Location : Western Australia

Back to top Go down

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

Post by polyenne on 05.04.18 10:28

I too believe that the Smith family saw someone carrying a child that night. I don't believe it was Madeleine (too risky and I believe her body was already "elsewhere") and I am sceptical that it was Gerry (again, too risky).

I do believe it was a decoy to fit in with a hastily re-hashed timeline for a 10pm "abduction" shout, the original (9.30pm ?) being scuppered by Gerry meeting Jez.

polyenne

Posts : 963
Reputation : 567
Join date : 2017-03-31

Back to top Go down

FOI-Operation Grange

Post by willowthewisp on 05.04.18 11:05

Hi Lemonbutter,I note your Smithman points along with Phoebe's writing.

I am not sure if what I am about to state is about verification of events in regard to 3 May 2007 in Portugal,in regard to the proclaimed"Official"documented date of the event happening?
But it explains a certain process.
I am not saying these events did not take place on the date above,first and foremost.
As Verdi,Antony Bennett have stated,that it is possible for events to have taken place earlier than the Now "Official documented"date!
So if it "Ever" can be proved that the"Official Documented date" is the wrong Date of the event having to have taken place,it blows the lid on at least 7/9 person's events of what may have happened in Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
Which could also be the same 7/9 persons who All Refused to go back to Portugal,to assist in finding out what happened to their friends little Three Year old girl Madeleine McCann,Now Why wouldn't you return back to help this little girl?

A"Pact Of silence"eh Mr Payne,it's nobody else's business?

The PJ Phone records highlights contact between One of the three Arquio's became too close within a"Normal context" of Police procedures,FSS evidence,investigation?
avatar
willowthewisp

Posts : 2849
Reputation : 972
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

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 05.04.18 12:46

@willowthewisp wrote:
So if it "Ever" can be proved that the"Official Documented date" is the wrong Date of the event having to have taken place,it blows the lid on at least 7/9 person's events of what may have happened in Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

Amen! That is what CMoMM is all about.

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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

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 05.04.18 12:50

The subject has been strategically manoeuvred to avoid the many salient points presented on this forum that cast doubt over the veracity of the Smith family sighting.  As long as that's allowed to continue, there will never be any progress.

CMoMM prides itself on being a leading investigative/research forum - an excellent place to hang out but always with the interests of Madeleine McCann at the forefront.  The forum's success is reflected in the statistics, both membership and readership, the only way to retain it's reputation and integrity is to maintain the professional standard that CMoMM has built over the years.   Since it's creation, the forum has gone from strength to strength - let's maintain that strong position by working towards a positive result, rather than a negative game of ping-pong.

This thread is actually entitled..

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

A positive move many will agree.  The replies are not very informative but miracles have not yet been accepted as the norm,  to get a straight response from a government official is akin to the proverbial 'getting blood out of a stone'.  This case is a massive establishment cover-up, they are not going to willingly lift the lid off a stinking rotten pile of merde - are they?

Another very positive note is the very recent letter sent to the Portuguese authorities, showing evidence that could lead to a renewed investigation sometime in the future - not by the UK authorities I hasten to add.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14979-letter-to-portugal-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-new-evidence-of-what-happened-to-her#383945

New evidence is what's needed to take this case forward, new evidence has been presented by the MMRG, through the auspices of Paulo Reis and is now in the hands of senior Portuguese authorities.   Let's keep that positive alive, don't allow the forum to stagnate for the sake of mawkish sentimentality.  In the grand scheme of things, it matters not who thinks what - because some ex-senior police official or some criminologist retains a blinkered view of the case, is not important.  The only important person is Madeleine McCann - it is she we work for, not the protection of some irrelevant personage on the periphery.  I believe I can say without fear of contradiction - members of CMoMM, past and present, know a whole lot more about the detail of this case than any part-time enthusiast, that pops up from time to time.

Just think - no doubt Gerry McCann was/is thought of as a high upstanding member of the community.  A family man with two remaining children who, like it or not, are caught up in the web of deceit created by their own parents !!!

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

Posts : 11006
Reputation : 4166
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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