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

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]

Ruffian wrote:Has this statement been forgotten or is it the flexible type

willowthewisp wrote:

Ruffian wrote:Has this statement been forgotten or is it the flexible type

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?

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

 by Tony Bennett on 11.06.18 

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.

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. 

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  to the forum.  I look forward to you contribution .

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.
==============================================  

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.

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!

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

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