Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 15:46

Tony Bennett wrote:Yes, that's my settled opinion. I will post a summary of what I think about 'Smithman' - and his role in this tale - later tonight

OK, thanks for the reply Tony :) I disagree about Smithman being fabricated and the Smiths being liars though. I guess we'll be back to the 'not looking like a tourist' thing again soon big grin

by Guest 12.12.13 16:10

Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: Yes, that's my settled opinion. I will post a summary of what I think about 'Smithman' - and his role in this tale - later tonight

Most interested in what you have to say on the matter. FWIW, I think what he had to say about it NOT being Murat was more important than anything he could offer on who it actually was. The semi-positive ID of Gerry was just a bit of after the event mischief. All in my humble opinion of course.

I will now be pondering this whilst enjoying my daughter's nativity play tonight!

by **PeterMac** 12.12.13 16:12

And on this same theme, there is a piece in l-azzeri-lies . . pointing out that Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman has totally bu****** up
Gerry's story of finding the door slightly more open.

Does Gerry still insist this was correct, or would he now like to reconsider his answer. ! !

It he sticks with it, he has to allow the "intruder" to be in the apartment for a good three quarters of an hour, and during TWO visits, before scuttling off in a tiny 'window of opportunity' between the last Tapas visit and return, and Kate's visit.

Redwood has now allowed them even less time, and less possibility than the previous one minute and twenty seconds.

Not surprising they are remaining so quiet.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 16:17

This is for people who hold that the PJ would not ask specific questions about Robert Murat, and therefore Martin Smith must have offered the information unprovoked:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_WRIGHT.htm
'When asked, he says that he knows Robert Murat by sight, for almost eight or ten years.
He did not see Murat on the scene on the night of the events - but remembers seeing him on different occasions.'

And another one:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-CASTELA.htm
'She saw the suspect, Robert Murat, for the first time on that day at about 12.30 when the witness went to meet GNR officers whom she cannot identify, to open the doors for them and speak to guests staying in apartments in block 6.'

Clearly the PJ were asking questions specifically about Murat.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 16:25

And some more questions relating to Murat from the PJ:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARMANDO_MORAIS.htm
'When asked, he said that he only saw Robert Murat on the second day of the searches, during the morning of 05-05-2007, near to a GNR vehicle, parked at the site.'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_DUARTE.htm
'He say he does not know Murat, and does not have the notion of having seen him before Friday 4th May at the mobile post installed at Rua Agostinho da Silva.'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAOLO_COSTA.htm
'When asked he said that he never saw Robert Murat in all the times he visited the scene.'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_PIMENTAL.htm
'When asked about Robert Murat, he says that he does not remember having seen him at dawn, having seen him during the day on 4th May in the afternoon at about 17.00- 18.00.'

There are more. Hopefully this will dissuade anyone from believing the falsehood that I've seen posted on this forum several times, that the PJ would not ask specific questions about Murat for fear of 'leading the witness'.

by Guest 12.12.13 19:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:So what's your theory ahout Smithman, Tony? How does he fit into the story?

What is your name, again?

Jane! Oh, I see.
Do you mean a physical decoy (like Gerry carrying a twin) or a complete fabrication on behalf of the Smiths? Interesting. I look forward to your thoughts later.

by Guest 12.12.13 19:13

Dee Coy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:So what's your theory ahout Smithman, Tony? How does he fit into the story?

What is your name, again?

Jane! Oh, I see.
Do you mean a physical decoy (like Gerry carrying a twin) or a complete fabrication on behalf of the Smiths? Interesting. I look forward to your thoughts later.

Dee Coy, have a look at this thread to help with the quote button.......

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8726-if-the-quote-box-is-not-working-for-you

by Guest 12.12.13 19:35

Thanks, Candyfloss. Could be my daft tablet.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.13 19:43

Tannerman and Smithman: A working hypothesis - in 20 points.

In this summary, there are a great many facts. There are also opinions. These opinions may be wrong. They are based, in my judgment, on the known facts below and on other facts in the public domain.

1. Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner and others. There is at least suspicion that Redwood’s Crecheman may also not exist. If he does exist, he would need to explain why he was walking towards the crèche and not away from it, why he never took the child to the creche in a buggy, and why he had not told anybody about his sighting for some six years.

2. Smithman was also a fabrication. None of the Smiths reported their claimed ‘sighting’ of ‘Smithman’ for 13 days - the day after Murat was made a suspect. It is claimed that on 16 May Peter Smith rang his father and said ‘Am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child?’ This tale stretches credulity. It was a fabrication because Martin Smith was a friend of Murat and wanted to help him.

3. At the time the Smiths claim to have seen this man, it was dark, they described the street lighting as ‘weak’, they only saw him for a second or two, and none of them saw his face because they said the child was hiding his face. None of them were in any position whatsoever to help draft an e-fit.

4. Martin Smith claimed to have recognised Gerry McCann on 9 September 2007 on TV by ‘the way he was carrying his child’. This was another bogus claim. At the time, Martin Smith was continuing to act in Murat’s best interests. His evidence was in any event worthless. Dr Goncalo Amaral fell into error in giving this sighting any weight at all.

5. On 13 November 2007, Brian Kennedy and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst, lawyer for both Brian Kennedy and the McCanns, met Murat, Murat’s lawyer, and three other members of Murat’s family. If a fly on the wall could have made available to the general public a tape-recording of all that was said on that evening, this case would IMO have been solved a long time ago. It is likely that, inter alia, ‘Smithman’ was discussed at this meeting.

6. It is on the record that Brian Kennedy spoke to Martin Smith. Both of them have kept this date a secret.

7. It is on the record that Martin Smith met with Brian Kennedy’s investigators. Neither side has said when, where, nor what they talked about. It is claimed that they drew up efits.

8. In view of point (3) above, they could not have done. It is not remotely credible that the Smiths drew up either one or two efits.

9. Efits were produced at this time by Kennedy’s investigators (the ones showed by Redwood on Crimewtach). The McCann Team had kept them under wraps for 5 years, according to ex-MI5 man Henri Exton, a partner of Oakley International .

10. Sometime, probably months before the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the ‘Mockumentary’), the McCann Team took a deliberate decision to include a suggestion in that programme that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same. This was always an utterly ridiculous suggestion as no abductor would be daft enough to be wandering around with the child he’d abducted for ¾ hour.

11. Some time after this, the Smithman details were uploaded to the McCanns’ website, ‘Find Madeliene’, the description being read out by a man with an Irish accent, just to fix in people’s minds that it was the Martin Smith sighting the McCanns were interested in.

12.Then, as Transworld worked with Dr Kate McCann’s scriptwriters, lawyers and public relations team to produce ‘madeleine’, published 12 May 2011, Smithman was further promoted by being given five pages in the book.

13. At the same time that the book was published, Rebekah Brooks forced the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, to order the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to review the evidence about what happened to Madeleine McCann. David Cameron’s spokesman said that the purpose of the review was ‘to help and support Madeleine’s family’. It has so far cost over £6 million and no-one knows when it will end

14. A few months later, forced by a Freedom of Information request, the Met Police disclosed that their remit was to ‘review the evidence surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance as if the abduction had happened in the U.K.

15. In January 2013, just before the final trial of the McCanns v Amaral was about to begin, the McCann Team tried to negotiate a settlement with Amaral. No deal was done.

16. On a date in 2012, Martin Smith met with Redwood. Neither party will say when, where and what was discussed.

17.At around this time (early 2013), the McCann Team, the Met Police and BBC Crimewatch began a series of meetings in preparation for a much-publicised CrimeWatch Special on 14 October. The BBC alone spent £1 million on this project. All three parties agreed the content of the programme. Martin Smith met with Redwood a second time. It was agreed to give ‘Smithman’ top billing.

18. The CrimeWatch programme was shown on 14 October. Redwood described the Smithman sighting. He then put up on the screen two efits, giving 6.7 million people the impression that they were of the same man and of the man seen by the Smiths. However, he slipped in the comment that ‘two witnesses’ had given these e-fits. He did not say that these witnesses were the Smiths. It was ambiguous whether he meant the Smiths or not. I am sure the deception was intentional on his part.

19.In a Crimewatch follow-up programme in November, despite the apparent urgency of identifying the people whose efits were shown in the October programme, none were shown by BBC Crimewatch.

20. In the week before Crimewatch was televised, child protection expert and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News that in her opinion, the original Tannerman sighting was fake, and that on CrimeWatch, the Met Police would be unveiling what she called ‘another fake sighting’. She might be right.

by Guest 12.12.13 19:45

Jeez ...!

by Guest 12.12.13 19:47

May I take it, that it's not on purpose, nor for having my doing some extra work ... winkwink

****
Tony wrote:

· Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner and others. There is at least suspicion that Redwood’s Crecheman may also not exist. If he does exist, he would need to explain why he was walking towards the crèche and not away from it, why he never took the child to the creche in a buggy, and why he had not told anybody about his sighting for some six years.
· Smithman was also a fabrication. None of the Smiths reported their claimed ‘sighting’ of ‘Smithman’ for 13 days - the day after Murat was made a suspect. It is claimed that on 16 May Peter Smith rang his father and said ‘Am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child?’ This tale stretches credulity. It was a fabrication because Martin Smith was a friend of Murat and wanted to help him.
· At the time the Smiths claim to have seen this man, it was dark, they described the street lighting as ‘weak’, they only saw him for a second or two, and none of them saw his face because they said the child was hiding his face. None of them were in any position whatsoever to help draft an e-fit.
· Martin Smith claimed to have recognised Gerry McCann on 9 September 2007 on TV by ‘the way he was carrying his child’. This was another bogus claim. At the time, Martin Smith was continuing to act in Murat’s best interests. His evidence was in any event worthless. Dr Goncalo Amaral fell into error in giving this sighting any weight at all.
· On 13 November 2007, Brian Kennedy and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst, lawyer for both Brian Kennedy and the McCanns, met Murat, Murat’s lawyer, and three other members of Murat’s family. If a fly on the wall could have made available to the general public a tape-recording of all that was said on that evening, this case would IMO have been solved a long time ago. It is likely that, inter alia, ‘Smithman’ was discussed at this meeting.
· It is on the record that Brian Kennedy spoke to Martin Smith. Both of them have kept this date a secret.
· It is on the record that Martin Smith met with Brian Kennedy’s investigators. Neither side has said when, where, nor what they talked about. It is claimed that they drew up efits.
· In view of point (3) above, they could not have done. It is not remotely credible that the Smiths drew up either one or two efits.
· Efits were produced at this time by Kennedy’s investigators (the ones showed by Redwood on Crimewtach). The McCann Team had kept them under wraps for 5 years, according to ex-MI5 man Henri Exton, a partner of Oakley International .
· Sometime, probably months before the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the ‘Mockumentary’), the McCann Team took a deliberate decision to include a suggestion in that programme that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same. This was always an utterly ridiculous suggestion as no abductor would be daft enough to be wandering around with the child he’d abducted for ¾ hour.
· Some time after this, the Smithman details were uploaded to the McCanns’ website, ‘Find Madeliene’, the description being read out by a man with an Irish accent, just to fix in people’s minds that it was the Martin Smith sighting the McCanns were interested in.
· Then, as Transworld worked with Dr Kate McCann’s scriptwriters, lawyers and public relations team to produce ‘madeleine’, published 12 May 2011, Smithman was further promoted by being given five pages in the book.
· At the same time that the book was published, Rebekah Brooks forced the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, to order the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to review the evidence about what happened to Madeleine McCann. David Cameron’s spokesman said that the purpose of the review was ‘to help and support Madeleine’s family’. It has so far cost over £6 million and no-one knows when it will end
· A few months later, forced by a Freedom of Information request, the Met Police disclosed that their remit was to ‘review the evidence surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance as if the abduction had happened in the U.K.
· In January 2013, just before the final trial of the McCanns v Amaral was about to begin, the McCann Team tried to negotiate a settlement with Amaral. No deal was done.
· On a date in 2012, Martin Smith met with Redwood. Neither party will say when, where and what was discussed.
· At around this time (early 2013), the McCann Team, the Met Police and BBC Crimewatch began a series of meetings in preparation for a much-publicised CrimeWatch Special on 14 October. The BBC alone spent £1 million on this project. All three parties agreed the content of the programme. Martin Smith met with Redwood a second time. It was agreed to give ‘Smithman’ top billing.
· The CrimeWatch programme was shown on 14 October. Redwood described the Smithman sighting. He then put up on the screen two efits, giving 6.7 million people the impression that they were of the same man and of the man seen by the Smiths. However, he slipped in the comment that ‘two witnesses’ had given these e-fits. He did not say that these witnesses were the Smiths. It was ambiguous whether he meant the Smiths or not. I am sure the deception was intentional on his part.
· In a Crimewatch follow-up programme in November, despite the apparent urgency of identifying the people whose efits were shown in the October programme, none were shown by BBC Crimewatch.
· In the week before Crimewatch was televised, child protection expert and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News that in her opinion, the original Tannerman sighting was fake, and that on CrimeWatch, the Met Police would be unveiling what she called ‘another fake sighting’. She might be right.

by Guest 12.12.13 19:48

I have to admit, that that takes more space ... big grin

ETA O.K. you beat me with a Times point 18 to my Calibri point 12 ... ROFL

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 20:55

I'll answer your points Tony:

1.Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner and others. There is at least suspicion that Redwood’s Crecheman may also not exist. If he does exist, he would need to explain why he was walking towards the crèche and not away from it, why he never took the child to the creche in a buggy, and why he had not told anybody about his sighting for some six years.

I totally agree, but there is nothing here to indicate that the Smiths were lying.

2. Smithman was also a fabrication. None of the Smiths reported their claimed ‘sighting’ of ‘Smithman’ for 13 days - the day after Murat was made a suspect. It is claimed that on 16 May Peter Smith rang his father and said ‘Am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child?’ This tale stretches credulity. It was a fabrication because Martin Smith was a friend of Murat and wanted to help him.

It doesn't stretch credulity. The Smiths may well have been wary of getting involved. Was Smith really a friend of Murat? He had met him in bars in 2006, but was he a friend? Is there anything to indicate this?

3. At the time the Smiths claim to have seen this man, it was dark, they described the street lighting as ‘weak’, they only saw him for a second or two, and none of them saw his face because they said the child was hiding his face. None of them were in any position whatsoever to help draft an e-fit.

Straw Man argument. None of them saw his face? That is untrue. Martin Smith said 'His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache.' So clearly he saw his face. Aoife said 'At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.' So she also saw his face.

4. Martin Smith claimed to have recognised Gerry McCann on 9 September 2007 on TV by ‘the way he was carrying his child’. This was another bogus claim. At the time, Martin Smith was continuing to act in Murat’s best interests. His evidence was in any event worthless. Dr Goncalo Amaral fell into error in giving this sighting any weight at all.

You say this is a bogus claim with nothing to back it up. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. At this time the media was full of accusations regarding the McCanns, and they had just been made arguidos. Why suddenly leap to Murat's defence at this time, as he doesn't seem to have needed it?

5. On 13 November 2007, Brian Kennedy and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst, lawyer for both Brian Kennedy and the McCanns, met Murat, Murat’s lawyer, and three other members of Murat’s family. If a fly on the wall could have made available to the general public a tape-recording of all that was said on that evening, this case would IMO have been solved a long time ago. It is likely that, inter alia, ‘Smithman’ was discussed at this meeting.

You have no idea what was discussed at this meeting, none of us do.

6. It is on the record that Brian Kennedy spoke to Martin Smith. Both of them have kept this date a secret.

Again, this is a fact that means nothing. It could have transpired that the Smiths were accurate in identifying Gerry, and they had been paid off, or warned off. The point is, you don't know, nor do any of us.

7. It is on the record that Martin Smith met with Brian Kennedy’s investigators. Neither side has said when, where, nor what they talked about. It is claimed that they drew up efits.

See answers to the last two points.

8. In view of point (3) above, they could not have done. It is not remotely credible that the Smiths drew up either one or two efits.

Which I have already shown, they did see his face, they said so in their statements. You don't know what went on. The Smiths may have said that they were unable to remember very clearly, but were maybe pressured into doing it. As I've said before, this point means nothing - you don't know what it means, same as anyone else.

9. Efits were produced at this time by Kennedy’s investigators (the ones showed by Redwood on Crimewtach). The McCann Team had kept them under wraps for 5 years, according to ex-MI5 man Henri Exton, a partner of Oakley International.

Which is more likely to indicate that the e-fits would be harmful to the McCanns. I don't see how you can view this in any other way. The e-fits were buried.

10. Sometime, probably months before the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the ‘Mockumentary’), the McCann Team took a deliberate decision to include a suggestion in that programme that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same. This was always an utterly ridiculous suggestion as no abductor would be daft enough to be wandering around with the child he’d abducted for ¾ hour.

So they decided to not report the Smith sighting accurately, but instead turn it into another version of Tannerman. This is just another alteration of the facts to explain everything, same as when Kate states that she suspected the abductor had sedated the twins. She could have chosen not to mention it, but the information was already out there, so she turned it into something that suits her interests. Same with the Smith sighting.

11. Some time after this, the Smithman details were uploaded to the McCanns’ website, ‘Find Madeliene’, the description being read out by a man with an Irish accent, just to fix in people’s minds that it was the Martin Smith sighting the McCanns were interested in.

Can't comment on this as I didn't see it at the time.

12. Then, as Transworld worked with Dr Kate McCann’s scriptwriters, lawyers and public relations team to produce ‘madeleine’, published 12 May 2011, Smithman was further promoted by being given five pages in the book.

The book doesn't mention Smith's name, just calls him 'Holidaymaker from Ireland', thereby stopping anyone from googling the man's name and finding his statements. The book compares Tannerman and Smithman and advises the reader that the two sightings were of the same man, reinforcing Tanner's word. I have the e-book version, so I can search keywords. 'Smith' gets 0 results. Where are these 5 full pages? Give me chapter numbers, as my e-book doesn't work on page numbers.

13. At the same time that the book was published, Rebekah Brooks forced the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, to order the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to review the evidence about what happened to Madeleine McCann. David Cameron’s spokesman said that the purpose of the review was ‘to help and support Madeleine’s family’. It has so far cost over £6 million and no-one knows when it will end.

How does this indicate the Smiths were lying?

14. A few months later, forced by a Freedom of Information request, the Met Police disclosed that their remit was to ‘review the evidence surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance as if the abduction had happened in the U.K.

How does this indicate the Smiths were lying?

15. In January 2013, just before the final trial of the McCanns v Amaral was about to begin, the McCann Team tried to negotiate a settlement with Amaral. No deal was done.

How does this indicate the Smiths were lying?

16. On a date in 2012, Martin Smith met with Redwood. Neither party will say when, where and what was discussed.

Again, as I've said before, this could just as easily mean that he was telling Redwood that it was Gerry that he saw. You don't know, none of us know - yet.

17. At around this time (early 2013), the McCann Team, the Met Police and BBC Crimewatch began a series of meetings in preparation for a much-publicised CrimeWatch Special on 14 October. The BBC alone spent £1 million on this project. All three parties agreed the content of the programme. Martin Smith met with Redwood a second time. It was agreed to give ‘Smithman’ top billing.

Thereby introducing Smithman to the British Public, the majority of whom had not heard of before this date. Before you know it, people were looking up the Smith sighting and discovering what Martin Smith said. I know lots of people who fit in this category. To people who have not looked into the case, Smithman is a new piece of information, a piece of information the McCanns failed to promote, other than to pretend that it was a later sighting of Tannerman. Opinion has massively turned against the McCanns since Crimewatch - well, at least, among the people I know, and the comments I have read on various websites.

18. The CrimeWatch programme was shown on 14 October. Redwood described the Smithman sighting. He then put up on the screen two efits, giving 6.7 million people the impression that they were of the same man and of the man seen by the Smiths. However, he slipped in the comment that ‘two witnesses’ had given these e-fits. He did not say that these witnesses were the Smiths. It was ambiguous whether he meant the Smiths or not. I am sure the deception was intentional on his part.

Deception? Or maybe just he was respecting the privacy of the Smiths, something they seem to want.

19. In a Crimewatch follow-up programme in November, despite the apparent urgency of identifying the people whose efits were shown in the October programme, none were shown by BBC Crimewatch.

So perhaps SY got what they were after. In no way does this indicate that the Smith sighting was fabricated.

20. In the week before Crimewatch was televised, child protection expert and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News that in her opinion, the original Tannerman sighting was fake, and that on CrimeWatch, the Met Police would be unveiling what she called ‘another fake sighting’. She might be right.

No, people have been through this before on this forum, this is your interpretation of what she said, not mine. You choose to quote people who 'agree' with you, and ignore people who don't, such as the wonderful Pat Brown.

So, to summarise - with all due respect - and I do respect all that you have done and been through - you have not made a single point here that convinces me one iota that Smithman was a fabrication. There is nothing here that justifies to me calling a whole family of people liars.

by Okeydokey 12.12.13 20:59

Tony Bennett wrote:Tannerman and Smithman: A working hypothesis - in 20 points.

In this summary, there are a great many facts. There are also opinions. These opinions may be wrong. They are based, in my judgment, on the known facts below and on other facts in the public domain.

1. Tannerman was a fabrication by Jane Tanner and others. There is at least suspicion that Redwood’s Crecheman may also not exist. If he does exist, he would need to explain why he was walking towards the crèche and not away from it, why he never took the child to the creche in a buggy, and why he had not told anybody about his sighting for some six years.

2. Smithman was also a fabrication. None of the Smiths reported their claimed ‘sighting’ of ‘Smithman’ for 13 days - the day after Murat was made a suspect. It is claimed that on 16 May Peter Smith rang his father and said ‘Am I dreaming, or did we see someone carrying a child?’ This tale stretches credulity. It was a fabrication because Martin Smith was a friend of Murat and wanted to help him.

3. At the time the Smiths claim to have seen this man, it was dark, they described the street lighting as ‘weak’, they only saw him for a second or two, and none of them saw his face because they said the child was hiding his face. None of them were in any position whatsoever to help draft an e-fit.

4. Martin Smith claimed to have recognised Gerry McCann on 9 September 2007 on TV by ‘the way he was carrying his child’. This was another bogus claim. At the time, Martin Smith was continuing to act in Murat’s best interests. His evidence was in any event worthless. Dr Goncalo Amaral fell into error in giving this sighting any weight at all.

5. On 13 November 2007, Brian Kennedy and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst, lawyer for both Brian Kennedy and the McCanns, met Murat, Murat’s lawyer, and three other members of Murat’s family. If a fly on the wall could have made available to the general public a tape-recording of all that was said on that evening, this case would IMO have been solved a long time ago. It is likely that, inter alia, ‘Smithman’ was discussed at this meeting.

6. It is on the record that Brian Kennedy spoke to Martin Smith. Both of them have kept this date a secret.

7. It is on the record that Martin Smith met with Brian Kennedy’s investigators. Neither side has said when, where, nor what they talked about. It is claimed that they drew up efits.

8. In view of point (3) above, they could not have done. It is not remotely credible that the Smiths drew up either one or two efits.

9. Efits were produced at this time by Kennedy’s investigators (the ones showed by Redwood on Crimewtach). The McCann Team had kept them under wraps for 5 years, according to ex-MI5 man Henri Exton, a partner of Oakley International .

10. Sometime, probably months before the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the ‘Mockumentary’), the McCann Team took a deliberate decision to include a suggestion in that programme that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same. This was always an utterly ridiculous suggestion as no abductor would be daft enough to be wandering around with the child he’d abducted for ¾ hour.

11. Some time after this, the Smithman details were uploaded to the McCanns’ website, ‘Find Madeliene’, the description being read out by a man with an Irish accent, just to fix in people’s minds that it was the Martin Smith sighting the McCanns were interested in.

12.Then, as Transworld worked with Dr Kate McCann’s scriptwriters, lawyers and public relations team to produce ‘madeleine’, published 12 May 2011, Smithman was further promoted by being given five pages in the book.

13. At the same time that the book was published, Rebekah Brooks forced the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, to order the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to review the evidence about what happened to Madeleine McCann. David Cameron’s spokesman said that the purpose of the review was ‘to help and support Madeleine’s family’. It has so far cost over £6 million and no-one knows when it will end

14. A few months later, forced by a Freedom of Information request, the Met Police disclosed that their remit was to ‘review the evidence surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance as if the abduction had happened in the U.K.

15. In January 2013, just before the final trial of the McCanns v Amaral was about to begin, the McCann Team tried to negotiate a settlement with Amaral. No deal was done.

16. On a date in 2012, Martin Smith met with Redwood. Neither party will say when, where and what was discussed.

17.At around this time (early 2013), the McCann Team, the Met Police and BBC Crimewatch began a series of meetings in preparation for a much-publicised CrimeWatch Special on 14 October. The BBC alone spent £1 million on this project. All three parties agreed the content of the programme. Martin Smith met with Redwood a second time. It was agreed to give ‘Smithman’ top billing.

18. The CrimeWatch programme was shown on 14 October. Redwood described the Smithman sighting. He then put up on the screen two efits, giving 6.7 million people the impression that they were of the same man and of the man seen by the Smiths. However, he slipped in the comment that ‘two witnesses’ had given these e-fits. He did not say that these witnesses were the Smiths. It was ambiguous whether he meant the Smiths or not. I am sure the deception was intentional on his part.

19.In a Crimewatch follow-up programme in November, despite the apparent urgency of identifying the people whose efits were shown in the October programme, none were shown by BBC Crimewatch.

20. In the week before Crimewatch was televised, child protection expert and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News that in her opinion, the original Tannerman sighting was fake, and that on CrimeWatch, the Met Police would be unveiling what she called ‘another fake sighting’. She might be right.

Lots of good points.

I've no idea what the truth is, but there have to be huge question marks over (a) the Smith sightings, (b) the behaviour of the extended Team McCann in relation to those sightings and (c) the way the Met Police are conducting the investigation.

(a) Can it really be the Smiths did not immediately recognise the implications of their sightings. This was the hugest criminal case in the UK ever and as I recall it was getting just about equal coverage in Ireland. There is no language barrier. Did no one ask them about their holiday, whether they saw anything of significance themselves? Did nothing happen to jog their memory?

(b) Speaks for itself.

(c) So many questions but here's one: how can the Police take so long to eliminate Tannerman, given their huge resources?

by Cristobell 12.12.13 21:04

With respect Tony, Goncalo Amaral was the coordinating detective and therefore much closer to the investigation than yourself. He was arranging for the Smith family to return to PDL when he was removed from the case, which of course, is another reason to believe that the Smith family sighting is sensitive to the McCanns.

I can't see any reason whatsoever for the Smith family to lie about what they saw. There were several of them, they were a group, when DCI Redwood said the e-fits were based on the testimony of two witness, then one would assume he mean't two from the Smith group with the best recollection.

At the moment, there is no definitive answer, and as frustrating as it is, we must await the results of Scotland Yard and the PJ investigation.

by Woburn_exile 12.12.13 22:29

I will refer to my earlier post. The fact that Tannerman has become crecheman and this is confirmed in public by SY speaks volumes. If AR were indeed intentionally diverting attention away from him as chief suspect whether he existed or not can you imagine what Carter Fuck will do to him? This is why I hold the belief that at least 1 of the tapas gang have come forward with the truth and struck a deal. Possibly JT herself.

All of this is said in my most miserable opinion with humbug bahs that know no bounds as I sit reflecting upon my wretched hopeless life. tease

by bobbin 12.12.13 22:32

Woburn_exile wrote:I will refer to my earlier post. The fact that Tannerman has become crecheman and this is confirmed in public by SY speaks volumes. If AR were indeed intentionally diverting attention away from him as chief suspect whether he existed or not can you imagine what Carter Fuck will do to him? This is why I hold the belief that at least 1 of the tapas gang have come forward with the truth and struck a deal. Possibly JT herself.

All of this is said in my most miserable opinion with humbug bahs that know no bounds as I sit reflecting upon my wretched hopeless life.

That's the true Christmas spirit ! Seasons Greetings to you laughat

by Guest 12.12.13 22:37

I hope that your life isn't really that wretched, Woburn_Exile.

I'm still not sure what to make of the Smith sighting.

by Guest 12.12.13 22:47

It's a minor thing, I know, but ... I would be grateful to dear Woburne_exile, if they'd use kind of less emoticons. One's enough to put their comment in context [and not be misunderstood, as the written language is "dangerous"] but the multitude makes my head and eyes spin more than the tease

by Woburn_exile 12.12.13 22:47

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I hope that your life isn't really that wretched, Woburn_Exile.

I'm still not sure what to make of the Smith sighting.

It's not really. I just have to prove my sufference indulgence to Candyfloss.
daft1

by Woburn_exile 12.12.13 22:50

Châtelaine wrote:It's a minor thing, I know, but ... I would be grateful to dear Woburne_exile, if they'd use kind of less emoticons. One's enough to put their comment in context [and not be misunderstood, as the written language is "dangerous"] but the multitude makes my head and eyes spin more than the

Well tat is something useful the mods can initiate. If they choose to restrict the number to 8 or possibly 18 then we would all be happy. big grin

by loopzdaloop 12.12.13 23:14

I totally believe the smiths as they were independent and everything made sense.
Tanner man was made up to contradict the potential of the smiths making a report of their sighting as Gerry knew he had been seen. Literally aiming to send police in another direction. I love that tanneman was "found". As everyone knows he doesn't exist! It changes the story,unsettling the key payers without overtly calling them liars. They are now even deeper in the hole and there is no way out... Nobody should expect to be kept totally informed by Scotland yard and thus should not be surprised when strange events happen. Their job is to unsettle the suspects and they have clearly done that.

by jeanmonroe 12.12.13 23:36

whatliesbehindthesofa:

WHEN did 'smithman' change the pyjama top on the child he was carrying, from the VERY SHORT SLEEVED pyjama top the McCanns said Madeleine was wearing, and they 'showed' to the press at news conferences, if they are now focussed solely on 'smithman' as the 'abductor', to LONG SLEEVED pyjama top that Ms Smith saw the child wearing and said so in her signed police statement?

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26
Location: DIC Portimao
Name: Aoife Smith

The witness states:
• She was wearing light trousers, white or light-pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was light and could have been cotton.

"She also had a light top, WITH LONG SLEEVES. She did not see well because the individual had his arms around the child"
She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers but the trousers were light.

Urged, affirms that she has finished declaring the truth, according to her knowledge.
• And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it inconformity, ratifies and signs together with her interpreter.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 23:46

jeanmonroe wrote:whatliesbehindthesofa:

WHEN did 'smithman' change the pyjama top on the child he was carrying, from the VERY SHORT SLEEVED pyjama top the McCanns said Madeleine was wearing, and they 'showed' to the press at news conferences, if they are now focussed solely on 'smithman' as the 'abductor', to LONG SLEEVED pyjama top that Mrs Smith saw the child wearing and said so in her signed police statement?

I've no idea jeanmonroe, nor what your real point is :)

EDIT: I see you've added some detail - yes, I've read that statement, I've read pretty much all the statements in the files. You haven't said what your point is though, because I can't see one.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 23:58

@jeanmonroe

I suppose I'll have to guess what it is you are implying - maybe that this somehow 'proves' that the Smiths fabricated their sighting? I apologise if that isn't the case, but I'll respond as if it is.

The McCanns have demonstrated that they are very willing to lie. Is that not why we are all here discussing the case? So they produced some short-sleeved pajamas to show the public. Obviously, these were not the pajamas Maddy was actually wearing that night. We only have the McCanns' word for what Maddy was wearing that night. If we assume they are ready to lie whenever it suits them, why not assume that the Smiths reported what they saw accurately, and that the McCanns are, as usual, telling fibs?