Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.13 21:35

@ChillyHeat wrote:
@Sockpuppet wrote:No it doesn't ChillyHeat, the quoted article is to do with Scotland Yard approaching the Smith family, not Oakley International.
True.....But the article says...

Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks as they attempt to construct a photofit on the prime suspect

The Herald article was March 2012.

Smith says he's spoken to Scotland Yard 'twice in the last 18 months'.

That would fit wit him speaking to SY in late March/early April 2012 and again, 18 months later, in late September/early October this year.

by StraightThinking 04.11.13 21:37

@Tony Bennett wrote:Honestly, what value do the Smiths' statements have?

The value they have is not so much in the identification of the man (though there was some clothing detail that may be relevant) but in the fact that he was carrying a child that some of the Smiths believe could have been M

Since nobody has come forward to say he was the man, there is a good chance that it was M

Even if there is no reliable witness description of him, the sighting itself potentially places M at that place at that time

And that is crucial information when integrated with the rest of the timeline

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.13 21:43

@StraightThinking wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Honestly, what value do the Smiths' statements have?
The value they have is not so much in the identification of the man (though there was some clothing detail that may be relevant) but in the fact that he was carrying a child that some of the Smiths believe could have been M

Since nobody has come forward to say he was the man, there is a good chance that it was M

Even if there is no reliable witness description of him, the sighting itself potentially places M at that place at that time

And that is crucial information when integrated with the rest of the timeline

We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...

PLUS the fact that anyone who was abducting Madeleine would be mad to walk around the streets of a holiday village...

PLUS the remarkable fact that no-one else in 6.5 years has come forward to say that they remember seeing a man carrying a barefoot child in pink pyjamas at 10.00pm on a cold early May night.

It's not much to go on.

Is it?

by Sockpuppet 04.11.13 21:44

Back to the Mirror article quoted earlier:

'Mr Smith, a former Unilever executive, made a statement along with his wife Mary, daughter Aoife and son Peter soon after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.

He helped compile e-fits a year later – but the images were not released at the time and were only made public for the first time earlier this week.'

So this article states, in a report that actually quotes Martin Smith himself, that the e-fits were compiled in 2008.

by dunn 04.11.13 21:45

@Tony Bennett wrote:
GPD wrote:
And all that matters, unless it ever goes to trial, are the official police statements made by the Smiths'. Period.
Honestly, what value do the Smiths' statements have?

The only identification evidence the Smiths can offer is...

Honestly - Well at this point they have identified a man, carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description, @10pm, in said area.

When dissected, selectively as you have, this may not appear to be much. However, should new evidence relating to the validity of people's declared whereabouts, accomplices, vehicles used, buildings used etc.. which admittedly you are I are not aware of now, but also are not aware may come to light in the future, then these statements may turn out to be a key piece of evidence.

And, to then top it with the fact that it bore ANY likeness to GM may well be the critical factor.

And they may not. But you or cannot place their actual value, Tony; we can only speculate.

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 21:49

IMO one key question that GM would NOT answer is "The Key" to unlocking this circus.

Did you know Murat before your visit to Portugal.

I consider the answer to this is yes (IMO)..and my gut feeling is that this is important.

GM would NOT answer this question.

Until the real questions get asked this farcical circus and utterly stupid portrayal of dead suspects ..Efits of the same man that look totally different will
continue.

The press in this country must actually think the public are dumb...or are they just keeping things on the back burner ..waiting for the explosion that MAY DROP!!

by bellum 04.11.13 21:51

On his documentary, 2009, Amaral tells that the Smiths were somehow afraid of the issue.
It was 4 years ago, when nobody knew where the power of the McCanns' was coming from and Gordon Brown was the prime minister.
Things have dramaticaly changed (for the McCanns) and my intuition tells me that the Smiths will not change their statements.

We all know what happened to the McCanns' power, no powerful concern helping them. If there was one, the S Y would have not started an investigation, and their review would have been their maximum.
this is my opinion

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 21:58

Bellum Wrote

We all know what happened to the McCanns' power, no powerful concern helping them. If there was one, the S Y would have not started an investigation, and their review would have been their maximum.
this is my opinion

I'm still unsure as to why SY reopened the investigation

WHO REALLY WANTED IT???

by StraightThinking 04.11.13 22:10

@Jackie Regan wrote:I'm still unsure as to why SY reopened the investigation
WHO REALLY WANTED IT???

SY themselves did. And they are investigating potential crimes relevant to the UK, not Portugal

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 22:12

@StraightThinking wrote:SY themselves did. And they are investigating potential crimes relevant to the UK, not Portugal

SY Did .....Is this Fact? or your opinion ?

The crimes relevant to UK being ?

by Guest 04.11.13 22:13

@Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...

***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...

by StraightThinking 04.11.13 22:16

@Jackie Regan wrote:
@StraightThinking wrote:SY themselves did. And they are investigating potential crimes relevant to the UK, not Portugal
SY Did .....Is this Fact? or your opinion ?
The crimes relevant to UK being ?

SY's job is to investigate crimes relevant to the UK, it isn't a world police force. Re Q2, have a guess ....

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 22:18

Châtelaine wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...

I think if you look at Anything in this case ..reflect on the words of GM himself.

"confusion is a good thing"

How many red herrings are really out there...how many were intended.

I recently have come to feel the Smith sighting may be another "garden path" among many "garden paths"

I'm not saying I totally discount the "Smithman"..but I can see why TB is not convinced.

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 22:20

@StraightThinking wrote:
@Jackie Regan wrote:
@StraightThinking wrote:SY themselves did. And they are investigating potential crimes relevant to the UK, not Portugal
SY Did .....Is this Fact? or your opinion ?
The crimes relevant to UK being ?
SY's job is to investigate crimes relevant to the UK, it isn't a world police force. Re Q2, have a guess ....

The Fund?

by Sockpuppet 04.11.13 22:23

Châtelaine wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...

That makes two of us Châtelaine :)

by Cristobell 04.11.13 22:25

@Jackie Regan wrote:IMO one key question that GM would NOT answer is "The Key" to unlocking this circus.

Did you know Murat before your visit to Portugal.

I consider the answer to this is yes (IMO)..and my gut feeling is that this is important.

GM would NOT answer this question.

Until the real questions get asked this farcical circus and utterly stupid portrayal of dead suspects ..Efits of the same man that look totally different will
continue.

The press in this country must actually think the public are dumb...or are they just keeping things on the back burner ..waiting for the explosion that MAY DROP!!

When Gerry gave the 'no comment' reply to whether he knew Murat, I think he was just being cocky. At the time the question was put to him, the McCanns were riding the crest of the media wave and loving it. Around the same time Gerry also answered another journalist's question with 'if we knew, we wouldn't tell you'. He had the upper hand, and information was worth money.

I tend to think Murat was not involved - child abduction/murder/sex crimes are the worst things to go to prison for, they are always under attack from other prisoners. No-one would put themselves up for that.

by Guest 04.11.13 22:32

I tend to think, for what it's worth, that Murat may have been an "enabler". E.g. he may have been the one to provide recreational stuff a lot of doctors are on to, but would never dare to carry on a plane ... Just saying ... IMO and all that jazz ...

ETA Good night to all and fingers crossed [no toes, that hurts too much] for tomorrow.

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 22:34

@Cristobell wrote:When Gerry gave the 'no comment' reply to whether he knew Murat, I think he was just being cocky.

Fair enough..but being Cocky is not something that you would feel follows the "Terrible hurt & Pain of not knowing what has happened to your own daughter"

This case infuriates me..but still intrigues!!

by Jackie Regan 04.11.13 22:37

Châtelaine wrote:I tend to think, for what it's worth, that Murat may have been an "enabler". E.g. he may have been the one to provide recreational stuff a lot of doctors are on to, but would never dare to carry on a plane ... Just saying ... IMO and all that jazz ...

ETA Good night to all and fingers crossed [no toes, that hurts too much] for tomorrow.

Yes ..I agree with your thinking..when I said he is the "Key" ..I just feel he knows enough ..I do not put him in a "Criminal activity category" regarding events ..but he could provide the catalyst that could start dominoes tumbling.

by nobodythereeither 04.11.13 22:38

@Sockpuppet wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...
That makes two of us Châtelaine :)

Three.

by chillyheat 04.11.13 22:44

Reports in the Portuguese press suggested that Murat had met Gerry whilst the latter was campaigning for the Labour Party. Murat denied this on 13 September, describing the reports as “absolutely ridiculous” and saying “I’ve never met the man before”.

Any truth to this ? Anyone seen any press reports on this claim ?

by Cristobell 04.11.13 22:56

@Jackie Regan wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:When Gerry gave the 'no comment' reply to whether he knew Murat, I think he was just being cocky.
Fair enough..but being Cocky is not something that you would feel follows the "Terrible hurt & Pain of not knowing what has happened to your own daughter"

This case infuriates me..but still intrigues!!

I agree, often feel as though I am playing the longest ever game of Cluedo! I think the terrible hurt and pain was part of the act, the real story was the success of the Fund and the daily photoshoots, the narcissistic duo were loving it.

by ultimaThule 04.11.13 23:08

@StraightThinking wrote:
@Jackie Regan wrote:I'm still unsure as to why SY reopened the investigation
WHO REALLY WANTED IT???
SY themselves did. And they are investigating potential crimes relevant to the UK, not Portugal

@Jackie Regan wrote:
@StraightThinking wrote:
@Jackie Regan wrote:
@StraightThinking wrote:SY themselves did. And they are investigating potential crimes relevant to the UK, not Portugal
SY Did .....Is this Fact? or your opinion ?
The crimes relevant to UK being ?
SY's job is to investigate crimes relevant to the UK, it isn't a world police force. Re Q2, have a guess ....
The Fund?

On a point of information:

"The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.

At 12.00hrs on Tuesday 14th June 2011 UK primacy for this matter formally passed from Leicestershire Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service under Operation Grange"

"Operation Grange Remit:

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit."

As I understand it, this 'investigative review' came about at the instigation of the PM and the Home Secretary following representations made by the McCanns and, some say, Rebekah Brooks.

There is no evidence to suggest Operation Grange is engaged in investigating crimes committed in the UK nor, since it has not been closed at any time, has it been re-opened.

by ShuBob 04.11.13 23:16

@nobodythereeither wrote:
@Sockpuppet wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...
That makes two of us Châtelaine :)
Three.

Four.

by BRODFB 04.11.13 23:17

@Tony Bennett wrote:

We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...

PLUS the fact that anyone who was abducting Madeleine would be mad to walk around the streets of a holiday village...

PLUS the remarkable fact that no-one else in 6.5 years has come forward to say that they remember seeing a man carrying a barefoot child in pink pyjamas at 10.00pm on a cold early May night.

It's not much to go on.

Is it?

The body/MM was moved. If it wasn't carried then it went in a car which to me suggests a more planned abduction. Temperature from the files appeared to be 16 degrees c, which while not hot is not exactly cold.