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!

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Mm11

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Regist10

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Ruffian on 21.10.18 11:04

Has this statement been forgotten or is it the flexible type
A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 WAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
Ruffian
Ruffian

Posts : 62
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by sharonl on 21.10.18 11:28

[adm]Please respect other forum members and the skilled research that they have carried out over many years.  Your posts are not backed up with any credible evidence and only appear to serve the purpose of discrediting the research of other members which are backed up with evidence.  Please make sure that you can provide valid evidence to back up such posts and not just opinion.

I suggest that you watch the documentaries by Richard Hall, read the e-book by Petermac, review the evidence presented on this forum which indicates Madeleines earlier death and the research & videos of HiDeHo, before making any further comment on this subject.

Thank you


[/adm]

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 6519
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 21.10.18 12:33

@sharonl wrote:[adm]Please respect other forum members and the skilled research that they have carried out over many years.  Your posts are not backed up with any credible evidence and only appear to serve the purpose of discrediting the research of other members which are backed up with evidence.  Please make sure that you can provide valid evidence to back up such posts and not just opinion.

I suggest that you watch the documentaries by Richard Hall, read the e-book by Petermac, review the evidence presented on this forum which indicates Madeleines earlier death and the research & videos of HiDeHo, before making any further comment on this subject.

Thank you


[/adm]
Ok. that's pretty clear. No comments allowed, nor direct evidence taken the files if any of these contradict or discredit certain theories. Thanks @ sharonl for clearing that up - no point in engaging without understanding this.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Smith Man

Post by willowthewisp on 21.10.18 14:24

@Ruffian wrote:Has this statement been forgotten or is it the flexible type
A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 WAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
Hi Verdi,Sharon,as the statement above is self explained.

Why is the,the persistence to silence, Phoebe or as in the past other members when they have a different opinion,are we now in a place where opinions can change and facts cannot change how you come to the conclusion,that it is a fact.

Operation Grange told everyone they were following One last line of inquiry,the "Bungling Burglars" from Portugal, nearly Five years ago!

The latest"Masterpiece" from Operation Grange goes back to Jane Tanners supposed sighting of "Creche Dad/Smith man family presumed sighting of Mr Julian Totman and his Daughter being carried Home from the Night Creche?

Everyone attacking the Smith family sighting,yet it is taken as gospel Jane Tanners sighting,without this presumed sighting,who or where is the Abductor that Operation grange insist has happened!

What if Jane Tanner was telling Porkies,aka Lourenco appearance,Sagresman who has been discredited,takeaway tanners sighting your left with smith Man Family sighting,if you take him away you've got no sightings,only the word of Mr Julian Totman,via DCI Andy Redwood, Crime Watch, 14 October 2013,the "Moving time Frame" to fit the crime,going completely against Sworn statements!

Takeaway Mr Totman,your then back to Three Arquido's of which Two are Not suspects or person's of interest leaving only one person,the original "Patsy" 360 degree turn in eleven years,Top flight Police work?
willowthewisp
willowthewisp

Posts : 3394
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by sharonl on 21.10.18 16:40

@willowthewisp wrote:
@Ruffian wrote:Has this statement been forgotten or is it the flexible type
A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 WAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
Hi Verdi,Sharon,as the statement above is self explained.

Why is the,the persistence to silence, Phoebe or as in the past other members when they have a different opinion,are we now in a place where opinions can change and facts cannot change how you come to the conclusion,that it is a fact.

Operation Grange told everyone they were following One last line of inquiry,the "Bungling Burglars" from Portugal, nearly Five years ago!

The latest"Masterpiece" from Operation Grange goes back to Jane Tanners supposed sighting of "Creche Dad/Smith man family presumed sighting of Mr Julian Totman and his Daughter being carried Home from the Night Creche?

Everyone attacking the Smith family sighting,yet it is taken as gospel Jane Tanners sighting,without this presumed sighting,who or where is the Abductor that Operation grange insist has happened!

What if Jane Tanner was telling Porkies,aka Lourenco appearance,Sagresman who has been discredited,takeaway tanners sighting your left with smith Man Family sighting,if you take him away you've got no sightings,only the word of Mr Julian Totman,via DCI Andy Redwood, Crime Watch, 14 October 2013,the "Moving time Frame" to fit the crime,going completely against Sworn statements!

Takeaway Mr Totman,your then back to Three Arquido's of which Two are Not suspects or person's of interest leaving only one person,the original "Patsy" 360 degree turn in eleven years,Top flight Police work?


There is no intention to silence any member from posting on any topic, but the researchers here have done a vast amount of work on this topic and have all reached the same conclusion. This has also been discussed on the forum many times.  Phoebe, like all other members is entitled to her opinion and she is entitled to express that opinion.  She has been permitted to do this and her posts are still available.  However, much of what Phoebe has to say on this topic has already been dealt with on the forum and we are just going over old ground, this is getting us no closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine and it appears that Phoebes' posts are meant only to discredit the research of other members.  Also whilst Phoebe may have posted evidence from the official files, she does not recognise that some of this evidence may have been engineered by the McCann private detectives or that it may be false evidence produced after the witnesses had met with the McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy.

Now either Phoebe is a little naive and not quite up to scratch with her research or she is deliberately trying to discredit the work of other members who have all reached the same conclusion after years of excellent research.

Phoebe is quite free to post on any topic that she wants too but we just request that does further research in this area before  making further comment.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 6519
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 21.10.18 18:48

@  sharonl . Thank you for your further clarification above.
 
Phoebe is quite free to post on any topic that she wants too but we just request that does further research in this area before  making further comment.


 Firstly, I assure you my difference of opinion does not spring from any lack of familiarity with research opining that the Smiths were part of a conspiracy. Nor does it spring from malicious intent, rather, a desire that the facts are not ignored nor glossed over if deemed inconvenient.

Secondly, the Smiths' evidence in the files which I have cited as differing greatly from the descriptions of Jane Tanner, comes from statements made in MAY 07. 
 Therefore it is impossible for them to have been in any way engineered or contaminated by the McCanns' private detectives (as you have suggested)

 Thirdly, I assure you it is never I who RAISES or RESURRECTS the issue of the Smith sighting. I merely REPLY to what is posted when I see that it is not in keeping with the established evidence in this case. For example this thread was initiated  as follows -

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty by Tony Bennett on 11.06.18 
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Verdi on 21.10.18 21:41

@Phoebe wrote:Fact - The truth is in the files. Don't hide behind excuses when seeking reasons to shut down the presentation of the facts from the files.

 Now Verdi, ban me if you will, as it seems you have been itching to ever since I have persisted in pointing out these hard, cold, true facts from the files!!
Censoring someone when they challenge an unsound theory with FACTS is an "abuse of power" by a  moderator and akin to Clarence's role to "control what comes out" and only allow one narrative to be told! How ironic!
Continuing to censor the emergence of truth and facts merely sends a clear message of motivation.
Nobody is trying to stifle debate or dictate a party line or censor anyone.  You are at liberty to post what you wish where you wish, providing comments don't contravene forum rules but don't be surprised, nor affronted, if comments are contested.

Enough is enough - you've had your say and your day now give it a rest.  Please stop trying to create forum disharmony, it's not welcome nor is it constructive.

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

Posts : 14467
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.10.18 21:57

@Phoebe wrote:@  sharonl 

 Firstly, I assure you my difference of opinion does not spring from any lack of familiarity with research opining that the Smiths were part of a conspiracy. Nor does it spring from malicious intent, rather, a desire that the facts are not ignored nor glossed over if deemed inconvenient.

Secondly, the Smiths' evidence in the files which I have cited as differing greatly from the descriptions of Jane Tanner, comes from statements made in MAY 07. 
 Therefore it is impossible for them to have been in any way engineered or contaminated by the McCanns' private detectives (as you have suggested)

 Thirdly, I assure you it is never I who RAISES or RESURRECTS the issue of the Smith sighting. I merely REPLY to what is posted when I see that it is not in keeping with the established evidence in this case. 
True colours of @ phoebe revealed today.

Mask not only slipping, but fallen right off.

Outed

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 21.10.18 22:15

Snipped from sharonl above -

"However, much of what Phoebe has to say on this topic has already been dealt with on the forum and we are just going over old ground, this is getting us no closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine.."


I happen to  agree with her, and have pointed out that it is  NOT I who  keeps raising or resurrecting any discussion re  the Smith sighting. The evidence on such threads will back this assertion up.


@ Tony Bennett . My "true colours" are facts and the truth, pretty much like the little chap who pointed out the unpopular truth in the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes".
Unless anyone believes he should have kept schtum about the fact that the Emperor was not dressed in fine clothing at all, but in the buff! 
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Verdi on 21.10.18 22:17

waiting

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

Posts : 14467
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by sharonl on 21.10.18 23:33

The MMRG also maintain that Madeleine died on 29th April 2007.  Earlier this year, they wrote to the Portuguese Attorney General who accepted the evidence and felt that it was credible enough to warrant it being passed onto the the PJ in Faro.

If its good enough for the Portuguese Attorney General and the PJ, then its certainly good enough for me.   

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15097-portuguese-attorney-general-passes-mmrg-death-on-sunday-29-april-2007-evidence-to-pj-in-faro-for-action?highlight=29TH+APRIL

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 6519
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 22.10.18 10:04

@ sharonl .  IMO. That's where the matter should rest then. No sense in preempting what the official investigation might make of this research by guessing or speculating. If they do decide that it has merit or they change their official position re. the disappearance happening on May 3 , then I'm sure we'll hear about it. Ditto for the Smiths' role in matters.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by willowthewisp on 22.10.18 17:13

Hi Sharon, I posted a reply to this thread, but duplicated the post then both post gone Smith Family sighting and of debate,thanks for your reply.

As Sar,has responded today in "Holier than Thou",there has been much debate about what may have been added to Madeleine McCann's disappearance by the family themselves and cohorts!

Taking,(Sars) post into consideration about what they managed to machine into the case and the necessity for the "Establishment involvement" for over Eleven years points the case for a "Major Cover Up",but no one will answer,Why,what are they afraid of,Truth?

PS, keep up the excellent work.
willowthewisp
willowthewisp

Posts : 3394
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Mainline on 24.10.18 16:14

@Verdi wrote:
@Mainline wrote:Hello, I haven't posted here in a while. This thread has me confused,can both sides tell me some very basic facts:

1. Did the Smiths actually see someone, if so who?

2. If the sighting was fake, was it invented for Robert Murat, or for the McCanns?
Hello again Mainline,

Please forgive my former bluntness, it was late at night and on the spur of the moment I thought your introductory post was a bit odd.

I was about to log-out so rather than lock the thread for a few hours which would not only cause confusion but  prevent members from continuing discussion, I moved your posts to a safe place for a few hours.  I've been busy all day, this is the first real opportunity I've had to get back on it, so to speak.

So, if you will allow, I will start again.

Hello Mainline and  welcome to the forum.  I look forward to you contribution thumbup .

Thank you Verdi, I was hit by the Talk Talk/Forumotion issue and only just getting back on, lots for me to catch up on. Please think nothing of it, I've been around long enough to understand your caution.
Mainline
Mainline

Posts : 109
Join date : 2018-10-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Roxyroo on 25.10.18 3:36

@Tony Bennett wrote:Phoebe made this post recently:

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

QUOTE:

I have asked you several times Tony whether you accept that the men described by Smith, Tanner and Lourenco, are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers).
The Smiths' man is described as having light skin, and short, light brown hair. Tannerman is described as having dark skin and copious long, dark, glossy hair while Sagresman is described as having a Latino appearance with long dark hair in a ponytail.


You persist in ignoring this question about a straightforward facts which have been used to underpin the theory of the Smiths being liars.
Diverting into tales of American political skullduggery is irrelevant to the Madeleine case. Claiming that the said descriptions are "carbon copies" when the evidence contradicts this IS an important, relevant issue which needs addressing. It is the one of the linchpins underpinning the theory of the Smith family being liars.


I do wish you would answer this straightforward, evidence based question, instead of making wild untrue allegations against me in retaliation for asking it or introducing irrelevant American political wrangling. Why are you so reluctant to answer a simple question.
UNQUOTE

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

Before answering Phoebe's question directly, I would like to make these observations to both her and also to other members and guests here.

First, I do not have time to answer every question within the next few minutes of few hours. I have been asked many many questions about the Madeleine McCann case over the years, especially on this forum, and older members here will be well aware that I have invariably taken the time to answer them as fully and honestly as I possibly can.  

For the record, most of the time in the past three days has been taken up with (a) a whole day spent with two documentary film-makers who came up from London the day to pick my brains and discuss in depth the murder of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home - they are making a film about it (b) filling in and collating all the information for two paper Tax Returns (mine, and one of my late mother who died in July) - in order to beat the 31 October deadline  (c) carrying out the duties of an Executor as it has fallen to me to administer my mother's modest estate and (d) in between that, caring for a younger family member.

I find it highly regrettable that any member here should be so hasty as to point the finger and accuse me of being 'reluctant to answer', 'ignoring this question' etc.  I also find the aggressive, angry tone incompatible with the normal politeness of our exchanges here. Even robust views can be put firmly but politely. How about something like: "Tony, I would be grateful for a reply"?

On the question of the video I posted being irrelevant, please see @ crackfox's posts. One of he commonest charges against me in relation to my Smithman theory is: "Martin Smith had no reason to lie". I have many times explained that there are numerous reasons why people tell the most awful lies. The video I posted is but one clear and very public illustration of this.

Phoebe wrote this: "are not "carbon copies" as you claim (and it is this claim which forms the basis for theories of collusion between the Smiths and powerful McCann helpers)".

REPLY: Phoebe has got this wrong. I allege collusion between Robert Murat's Team and Martin Smith, NOT the McCanns and Martin Smith. THAT came later, after the all-important SALALITO SUMMIT.

====

Now, to provide an answer (short as I have to pick up a family member from the station in a few minutes), here is my ORIGINAL post - 25 October 2013, jusr 11 days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special that triggered my deep interest in the Smithman sighting. Everybody will see the reference I made was to 'remarkable similarities', not 'carbon copies'. Agreed I may have said 'virtual carbon copies' on one occasion, but five years later I stand fully behind what I wrote - below (I have to get down to the station right away):

++++++++++++++++++++
       
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8297-smithman-2-what-can-account-for-the-17-remarkable-similarities-between-tannerman-and-smithman?highlight=smithman

25 October 2013
The descriptions of a mystery man claimed to have been seen by Jane Tanner and by members of the Smith family are remarkably similar.

A senior Metropolitan Police Officer, D.C.I. Andy Redwood, heading up a 3-year, £6 milion Scotland Yard investigation, has now told the nation, on the record, and in front of an audience of 6.7 million people on the BBC, that Tannerman was a crecheman carrying his infant home from the night crèche. Clearly as a nation of people who have faith in what has been described as ‘the worlds’ finest police force', we must believe him. There can be no room for doubt.

However, let us return to the similarities between the original descriptions given by Jane Tanner and the Smiths, both in May 2007. These were:

1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no push-chair

3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl

5. The child was barefoot
6. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas

7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man’s left side

9. She didn’t have a blanket or other covering
10. The men did not look like tourists

11. They were wearing a dark jacket

12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13. They were both about 1.75m  to 1.8m tall (5’ 9” – 5’ 10”)

14. They were both aged 35-40
15. They were of average build

16. They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man’s face be seen.

What could account for these remarkable 17 similarities – now that Redwood has told us the truth about Tannerman/crecheman?

1. Crecheman and Smithman are one and the same - he had to walk a very long way back home from the crèche.

OR

2. There were two virtually identical men with virtually identical clothes each taking their virtually identical children somewhere – just one of those amazing coincidences.
OR

3. Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to  a script and neither actually saw anyone.

OR

4. Some other reason.
==============================================  
A brilliant explanation to a question I have had trouble keeping up with, Thankyou Tony

____________________
Everything I post is ALL MY OWN OPINION and therefore I.m allowed to think whatever I please! gm
Roxyroo
Roxyroo

Posts : 421
Join date : 2016-04-04
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by sharonl on 26.10.18 19:36

How can Martin Smith say that he didn't notice the clothing of this man in his first statement but in an additional statement, claim that he was wearing a dark coloured jacket?

Martin says that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen but out of 8 other family members, only his wife agrees with him.  His wife however, has made no such statement and we only have Martin Smiths word for that.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 6519
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 26.10.18 21:18

@sharonl wrote:How can Martin Smith say that he didn't notice the clothing of this man in his first statement but in an additional statement, claim that he was wearing a dark coloured jacket?

Martin says that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen but out of 8 other family members, only his wife agrees with him.  His wife however, has made no such statement and we only have Martin Smiths word for that.
The Smiths spoke with each other about what each recalled of the sighting. Snipped from the statement of Peter Smith - 
 
"Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot."


 It most unlikely that Martin  Smith would feel the need to perjure himself over his wife's accord with his opinion. I expect his wife was unwilling to get further involved - can't say I blame her after all the dreadful accusations that have been leveled at her family since they came forward to report what they saw!
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by sharonl on 26.10.18 22:17

So all we have then is the testimony of one Smith family member, after he met with McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy.

Furthermore, if Martin Smith is pointing the finger at Gerry McCann, why on earth is Brian Kennedy meeting up with him?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 6519
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Tony Bennett on 26.10.18 22:25

@Phoebe wrote:
@sharonl wrote:How can Martin Smith say that he didn't notice the clothing of this man in his first statement but in an additional statement, claim that he was wearing a dark coloured jacket?

Martin says that it may have been Gerry McCann that he had seen but out of 8 other family members, only his wife agrees with him.  His wife however, has made no such statement and we only have Martin Smiths word for that.
It is most unlikely that Martin  Smith would feel the need to perjure himself over his wife's accord with his opinion. I expect his wife was unwilling to get further involved - can't say I blame her after all the dreadful accusations that have been leveled at her family since they came forward to report what they saw!
As per usual, Phoebe has ignored the point put to her, namely how could Martin Smith say on 26 May that he couldn't see what the man was wearing above the waist, yet months later says: 'Oh I remember, he was wearing a dark jacket!'?

This is not evidence. He's CHANGED his evidence because of what others have told him.

Just like he TWICE  changed the details of the age of the man he said he saw - and gave varying and  contradictory evidence about how well he knew Robert Murat.

And still, judging by the other thread, she continues to deny the obvious fact that BEFORE the 'SALSALITAS SUMMIT' (13 Nov 2007), the McCanns ignored the Smithman sighting, then AFTER it, they shamelessly used it to their advantage on documentaries, on their website and in Kate's book.

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by sharonl on 26.10.18 22:33

It's starting to look to me Tony, that this coverup is not about protecting the McCanns, but about protecting something very sinister that may have happened in Praia Da Luz in late April 2007.  Something that the McCanss are well aware of, of course.  It seems that whatever happens, the truth about what was going on over there during this time must remain a secret at all costs.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
sharonl
sharonl
Co-Admin
Co-Admin

Posts : 6519
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 26.10.18 22:42

The Smiths, between statements, like normal people, discussed what they had seen among themselves. Doing this helps jog one's memory -simple as that! 
The McCanns did not make use of the Smith sighting - the e-fits were not made public for years. 
Mr. Smith NEVER "gave contradictory evidence" about how well he knew Murat. This claim is based on MSM drivel - the same drivel which claimed the Smiths said that they had not been in contact with the police after May 26th 07, conveniently omitting their identification of Gerry as Smithman in Sept 07.
It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Tony Bennett on 26.10.18 23:01

@Phoebe wrote:The Smiths, between statements, like normal people, discussed what they had seen among themselves. Doing this helps jog one's memory -simple as that! 

REPLY: CHANGING one's evidence after talking to others invalidates the subsequent changed evidence. As simple as that.

The McCanns did not make use of the Smith sighting - the e-fits were not made public for years.

REPLY: Please reply saying whether you agree or not to the following 3 statements:
1. The McCanns used the Smithman sighting in the May 2009 Channel 4 documentary
2. The McCanns used the Smithman sighting on their website from May 2009 onwards
3. The McCanns  included 7 pages referring to Smithman in Kate's book 'Madeleine', including 3 pages describing the 'remarkable similarities between Smithman and Tannerman


Mr. Smith NEVER "gave contradictory evidence" about how well he knew Murat. This claim is based on MSM drivel - the same drivel which claimed the Smiths said that they had not been in contact with the police after May 26th 07, conveniently omitting their identification of Gerry as Smithman in Sept 07.

REPLY: I have outlined no fewer than TWELVE SETS of contradictions in the Smith's evidence (see SMITHMAN 5) and you've never rebutted them yet

It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!

REPLY: Gemma O'Doherty comprehensively failed to explain - or even mention - that Martin Smith had been SUPPORTING the McCanns for 10 years, consequently her article is worthless
Replies as above

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Phoebe on 26.10.18 23:10

There is absolutely NO evidence that Martin Smith  has been "Supporting the McCanns for ten years". That is your opinion. 
The Smiths pointed the finger of blame at Gerry McCann in Sept 07. They have allowed it to be put on public record that they have never changed their mind about Smithman being Gerry and that they had objected to BBC misrepresentation of this fact.
The McCanns did not use the Smith sighting until after it came into the public domain with the publication of the P.J. Files. Then they tried, desperately, to link Smithman to Tannerman.
avatar
Phoebe

Posts : 1367
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by lemonbutter on 27.10.18 7:34

#96 - Snipped from Phoebe's post:


"It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!"


#97 - Snipped from Tony Bennett's post:


REPLY: Gemma O'Doherty comprehensively failed to explain - or even mention - that Martin Smith had been SUPPORTING the McCanns for 10 years, consequently her article is worthless




Err .... that would be because Gemma O'Doherty DOES NOT believe that Martin Smith had been supporting the McCanns for 10 years!!


Her article is VALID and extremely WORTHWHILE
avatar
lemonbutter

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

Back to top Go down

A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018) - Page 4 Empty Re: A bit more information on those controversial Smithman efits - From Met Police answers to some more Freedom of Information Act Questions (11 Jun 2018)

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.10.18 7:45

@lemonbutter wrote:#96 - Snipped from Phoebe's post:


"It is oddly inconsistent that the MSM are to be believed when their evidence suits, yet Gemma O' Doherty must be a liar or part of a conspiracy when her reportage contradicts a theory!"


#97 - Snipped from Tony Bennett's post:


REPLY: Gemma O'Doherty comprehensively failed to explain - or even mention - that Martin Smith had been SUPPORTING the McCanns for 10 years, consequently her article is worthless




Err .... that would be because Gemma O'Doherty DOES NOT believe that Martin Smith had been supporting the McCanns for 10 years!!


Her article is VALID and extremely WORTHWHILE
OK, Please give me the cites for the places in Gemma O'Doherty's article where she states all, or any, of the following:

Martin Smith...

1 Being contacted by Brian Kennedy Dec 2007 or Jan 2008

2 Agreeing with the McCann Team to do an efit 

3 Doing an efit (well, 2 efits) for Kevin Halligen's right-hand man, Henri Exton, in September 2008

4 Staying silent as the McCanns milked his sighting on the May  Channel 4 documentary

5 Staying silent when, also in May 2009, the put the Smithman sighting on their Find Madeleine website

6 Staying silent after Kate McCann used the Smithman sighting in her (on 7 pages) to imply that Tannerman and Smithman were the same

7 Co-operating with the BBC and the Met Police to produce the 2013 CrimeWatch McCann Special.

Even Phoebe admits to these 7 points

____________________

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 : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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