Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

by Guest 10.12.13 21:40

Cristobell wrote:I'm with Margaret, your post was a great read btw, I think the revelation that SY have ruled Tannerman out of the investigation has thrown a major spanner in the Team McCann works. Its been their fallback position from the start - their only proof of abduction. For whatever reason they chose not to promote the sighting by the Smith family, and we can only wonder why.

What was telling, as I read through the site, was the number of pro McCann posters (that "Garth" nutjob and his various alter-egos, principally) who, pre Crimewatch, would quote Tannerman as irrefutable evidence of an abduction. Hats off to all of you who stuck to your guns at the time, and generally in a more courteous and considered manner than was really warranted.

by **PeterMac** 10.12.13 22:23

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:I'm with Margaret, your post was a great read btw, I think the revelation that SY have ruled Tannerman out of the investigation has thrown a major spanner in the Team McCann works. Its been their fallback position from the start - their only proof of abduction. For whatever reason they chose not to promote the sighting by the Smith family, and we can only wonder why.
REPLY: I have simply lost count of the number of times I've had to correct this very misleading statement.
Smithman WAS promoted as long ago as May 2009 in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the 'Mockumentary) AND AGAIN Smithman occupied five whole pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) Cristobell, may I politely suggest that you withdraw the suggestion that the McCanns 'chose not to promote Smithman', because, quite clearly, the McCann Team DID
Yes, and I have also said that we never had a press conference about such an important witness either..........nor much said about him in interviews, unlike 'Tannerman'. Can you find an interview where he was described etc. Was his e-fit on the website, like tannerman and all the others? So I would agree with Cristobell on this, and I don't believe she should withdraw her statement Tony. Sorry I have to disagree with you on this.

Please recognise TB's delicate LEGAL position.
He is restricted, as is no other person on planet Earth, (- and possibly, given C-R's immense power, brilliance, legal expertise and influence, anywhere in the known Universe !)
from saying anything which MIGHT suggest that TM have behaved immorally or illegally or to the detriment of the search for Madeleine by their deliberate and apparently legally approved concealment for five years of the e-fits and the statements and reports which accompanied them.

Happily others of us can big grin

And DO.

by Cristobell 10.12.13 23:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:I'm with Margaret, your post was a great read btw, I think the revelation that SY have ruled Tannerman out of the investigation has thrown a major spanner in the Team McCann works. Its been their fallback position from the start - their only proof of abduction. For whatever reason they chose not to promote the sighting by the Smith family, and we can only wonder why.

REPLY: I have simply lost count of the number of times I've had to correct this very misleading statement.

Smithman WAS promoted as long ago as May 2009 in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary (the 'Mockumentary) AND AGAIN Smithman occupied five whole pages of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine' (May 2011) Cristobell, may I politely suggest that you withdraw the suggestion that the McCanns 'chose not to promote Smithman', because, quite clearly, the McCann Team DID

We will have to agree to disagree on this Tony, in my opinion they did not promote the Smith sighting. They didn't deny it, how could they, it was always going to come out. However, they kept it in the bottom drawer, there were no e-fits, no press conferences, no appeals based on the Smith sighting. It is quite possible that those who only read the MS newspapers were completely unaware of Smithman.

Following on from that we have had the Times revelation that the McCanns suppressed the Private Investigators' report and the e-fits obtained from the Smith family. They did not want the evidence of the Smith family out in the open, of that I am positive.

You mentioned the Channel 4 documentary. The incredible thing about that documentary was the deliberate change in appearance of the man seen by the Smith family. Those of us familiar with the Smith family sighting knew that the man they described had short brown hair and carried the child in a more natural way, with the child's head resting on his shoulder. The documentary showed Tannerman, and took him further down the streets of PDL where he would bump into the Smith family, still holding the child in the awkward Tannerway 45 minutes later. If anyone suspected the McCanns were covering up the Smith family sighting, that documentary would have set off alarm bells. Smithman had morphed into Tannerman. What were they trying to cover?

by Maria 10.12.13 23:21

McCanns only ever mentioned Smith because they had to, and even then they implied he was Tannerman. No way did they promote Smithman. Look at the exposure Tanner man and all the others got, smithman got nothing, other than to imply he was tannerman.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.12.13 23:32

No way was Smithman promoted. Speaking from a personal point of view, the first time I heard about the Smith sighting was this year when I began to look into the case. Anyone reading the book will just assume that the Smith sighting was Tannerman, as was the deliberate intention. Kill two birds with one stone - omitting any mention of Smithman would be suspicious, and positively reinforcing the Tanner 'sighting'.

As for what PeterMac said, surely the best option would be for Tony not to comment on it then? I really think Tony is barking up the wrong tree on this one, but he's entitled to his opinion.

by Daisy 10.12.13 23:35

PeterMac wrote:Please recognise TB's delicate LEGAL position.
He is restricted, as is no other person on planet Earth, (- and possibly, given C-R's immense power, brilliance, legal expertise and influence, anywhere in the known Universe !)
from saying anything which MIGHT suggest that TM have behaved immorally or illegally or to the detriment of the search for Madeleine by their deliberate and apparently legally approved concealment for five years of the e-fits and the statements and reports which accompanied them.

Happily others of us can And DO.

Good call PeterMac. Let's not forget this. Tony Bennett has lost more and stands to lose more than any of us.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.12.13 23:51

So what is being suggested here is that Tony is saying the opposite of what he feels because of Carter-Ruck?

Like I said, then it would be best not to comment, rather than repeatedly bringing up this 'fake' Smithman subject, and asking people with a different opinion to withdraw THEIR statements.

by Daisy 11.12.13 0:23

Who has suggested that? I must have missed it.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:So what is being suggested here is that Tony is saying the opposite of what he feels because of Carter-Ruck?

Like I said, then it would be best not to comment, rather than repeatedly bringing up this 'fake' Smithman subject, and asking people with a different opinion to withdraw THEIR statements.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.12.13 0:33

Daisy wrote:Who has suggested that? I must have missed it.
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:So what is being suggested here is that Tony is saying the opposite of what he feels because of Carter-Ruck?

Like I said, then it would be best not to comment, rather than repeatedly bringing up this 'fake' Smithman subject, and asking people with a different opinion to withdraw THEIR statements.

That's what I read into Petermac's post that you quoted.

by Maria 11.12.13 1:20

I believe Tony asked kindly for someone to remove their statement that says she/he does not believe McCanns promoted Smithman. Its on the last page. I've a terrible head for names so I forgot who but believe Tony asked this.

Fair enough Tony thinks it is all fake, has a right to his opinion and a right to share it.. Just like others who dont agree, have that same right.
I personally believe they hid the smith sighting as much as possible, and only ever promoted it to imiply he was tannerman, like I said before.

Now tannerman is no more, one of the main things most people didn't believe in, pieces added to his discription weekly even though memory fades with thim. It was always a big No No. One of the reasons i believe this is a big whitewash is the fact they got rid of silly tannerman story first, no one believed it anyway and it leaves a wider timeframe for abduction, which is all they are interested in (SY). I really hope Portugal come up trumps.

by aiyoyo 11.12.13 13:56

My two cents FWIW..

IMV, Smithman was never promoted.
He was mentioned, yes, in a misguiding-people-way in the Mc-recon, and also mentioned in kate's bewk for posterity.
They never promote, as in actively support/encourage or advance the progress of "look out" for Smithman.
The fact they sat on two e-fits of Smithman is indicative of their non promotion of this figure, if nothing else is.

Mentioned he was, promoted (per se) he was not.
Not in the same urgency (well not that's not right even) not in the same sense they prominently and publicly promote Tannerman on their website and through constant publicity so much so he evolved into 11 or 12 species{?} before the materalising of Crecheman stops them in the track.
And even that has not stop them from passively promoting Tannerman on their OFM.

Had they wanted to promote Smithman, what better time than now to post up the E-fits on their OFM? But, they did NOT.

by Woburn_exile 12.12.13 11:22

I'm confused here. This is 1 of the witness testimonials on the Find Madeleine site. They even used someone with a passable Irish accent.

http://findmadeleine.com/videos/WITNESS%205%20AUDIO.mp3

by Guest 12.12.13 11:26

Woburn_exile wrote:I'm confused here. This is 1 of the witness testimonials on the Find Madeleine site. They even used someone with a passable Irish accent.

http://findmadeleine.com/videos/WITNESS%205%20AUDIO.mp3

What particularly are you confused about?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.13 11:52

Woburn_exile wrote:I'm confused here. This is 1 of the witness testimonials on the Find Madeleine site. They even used someone with a passable Irish accent.

http://findmadeleine.com/videos/WITNESS%205%20AUDIO.mp3

Candyfloss wrote:
Can you find an interview where he was described etc. Was his e-fit on the website, like tannerman and all the others? So I would agree with Cristobell on this, and I don't believe she should withdraw her statement Tony. Sorry I have to disagree with you on this.

Thank you very much Woburn_exile for doing my work for me.

I had intended to answer candyfloss, Cristobell and others who continue to maintain, against the evidence, that the McCanns never promoted 'Smithman'.

I referred up the thread to the McCanns promoting 'Smithman':

A. In the Channel 4/Mentorn Media Documentary, May 2009 (the 'Mockumentary')

and

B. On five whole pages of Dr McCann's book 'madeleine'.

As you quite rightly say, Woburn_exile - you have beaten me to it, Smithman has also been prominently promoted:

C. On the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, for about three years. It is clearly 'Smithman' in the description and of course with the Irish accent.

Some people, quite a few it seems, want to believe that the McCanns never promoted 'Smithman'.

Whereas I see the gradual promotion of 'Smithman' as a distinct progression:

First - on the Mockumentary, then >>>>

Promoted prominently on the McCanns' website, then >>>>

Promoted on five whole pages of Kate's book 'madeleine', and finally >>>>

After intense collaboration for months between the McCann Team, Scotland Yard's finest and the BBC Crimewatch Team >>>>

His emergence as the man we are now all supposed to be looking for instead of Tannerman.

Complete with two e-fits, neither of which (I am 100% sure about this) were drawn up by any members of the Smith family.

But clearly I am fighting a losing battle against those who still believe that the McCanns never promoted 'Smithman'.

Therefore this is the very last time on this forum that I suggest, one more time, that the McCanns have been promoting Smithman since May 2009.

by ultimaThule 12.12.13 12:08

Maria wrote:I believe Tony asked kindly for someone to remove their statement that says she/he does not believe McCanns promoted Smithman. Its on the last page. I've a terrible head for names so I forgot who but believe Tony asked this.

Fair enough Tony thinks it is all fake, has a right to his opinion and a right to share it.. Just like others who dont agree, have that same right.
I personally believe they hid the smith sighting as much as possible, and only ever promoted it to imiply he was tannerman, like I said before.

Now tannerman is no more, one of the main things most people didn't believe in, pieces added to his discription weekly even though memory fades with thim. It was always a big No No. One of the reasons i believe this is a big whitewash is the fact they got rid of silly tannerman story first, no one believed it anyway and it leaves a wider timeframe for abduction, which is all they are interested in (SY). I really hope Portugal come up trumps.

On the contrary the 'timeframe for abduction' has narrowed considerably.

In substituting Crecheman for Tannerman and eliminating him from the investigation, the Crimewatch 'reconstruction' of the movements of the Tapas 9 according to their own accounts showed there was only one window of opportunity for Madeleine to be 'taken' from her bed by person or persons unknown which occurred c9.50-9-55pm on the evening of 3 May 2007.

Those who have read the statements of independent witnesses available at mccannfiles.com will be aware that from c9.30pm a search for the child was underway and the table occupied by the Tapas 9 was empty of all except Dianne Webster.

IMO SY has come up trumps, particularly as the live interview of the McCanns in the studio after the filmed 'reconstruction' was shown indicated their tacit approval of AR's account of events and at no time did they indicate they were in any way dissatisfied with the investigation, or in disagreement with the 'revised' timeline.

by Guest 12.12.13 12:10

So what's your theory ahout Smithman, Tony? How does he fit into the story?

by Guest 12.12.13 12:29

Tony Bennett wrote:

Therefore this is the very last time on this forum that I suggest, one more time, that the McCanns have been promoting Smithman since May 2009.

Hmmm. I first came across Smithman through Amaral's book - you can imagine what a shock that was.

Judging by discussion of the case in the off topic sections of other, unrelated fora that I read, most people had no idea until Crimewatch aired. So if the McCanns were "promoting" the Smith sighting then they were doing so in a peculiarly ineffectual manner, by their standards.

by Guest 12.12.13 12:47

Just one question: if the McCanns were "promoting" Smithman AND they had a report from their private detectives AND they had e-fits, WHY did they never publish that on their website, but rather suppress for some 6 years ????

ETA and WHY did they, when finally mentioning the 10pm sighting, morph Smithman into Tannerman in their mockumentary?

OK. That's two questions ... winkwink

by Guest 12.12.13 12:50

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Therefore this is the very last time on this forum that I suggest, one more time, that the McCanns have been promoting Smithman since May 2009.

Hmmm. I first came across Smithman through Amaral's book - you can imagine what a shock that was.

Judging by discussion of the case in the off topic sections of other, unrelated fora that I read, most people had no idea until Crimewatch aired. So if the McCanns were "promoting" the Smith sighting then they were doing so in a peculiarly ineffectual manner, by their standards.

Quite CR, and considering he was already known about in June 2007, they waited till 2009 to include him in the documentary, and 2011 to include him in the book. Surely such an important sighting as this would be a priority for them and their PI's.

Local family may have seen missing Maddy Drogheda Independent

By Angela McCormick
Wednesday June 06 2007

A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

The family isunderstood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz.

They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

by Jontait 12.12.13 13:03

Smithman didn't get a press conference, I don't recall Clarrie brandishing his pics to the media. In fact, given the Victoria Beckham-alike presser was some time after Smithman efits produced, it whiffs of clear knowledgable misdirection by Team McCann.

by ultimaThule 12.12.13 13:31

Everything about the McCanns has whiffed of eau d'cod since day 1 and what was once a faint but distinct fragrance became an overpowering stench during Clarrie's tenure as director of ~~mis~~information.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.13 15:15

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

What is your name, again?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.12.13 15:21

And what would have been the purpose of a 'decoy'?

Edit: .... bearing in mind that if the Smiths' sighting was of somebody connected to the McCanns deliberately attempting to pervert the course of justice, and that person was caught on CCTV ... surely this would result in the arrests of all involved.

Edit 2: ... but I remember this discussion from other threads now. The general idea is that the Smiths were lying, and Smithman was a fabrication - have I got that right?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.13 15:42

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:And what would have been the purpose of a 'decoy'?

Edit 2: ... but I remember this discussion from other threads now. The general idea is that...Smithman was a fabrication - have I got that right?

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

by cockerspaniel 12.12.13 15:46

ultimaThule wrote:
Maria wrote:I believe Tony asked kindly for someone to remove their statement that says she/he does not believe McCanns promoted Smithman. Its on the last page. I've a terrible head for names so I forgot who but believe Tony asked this.

Fair enough Tony thinks it is all fake, has a right to his opinion and a right to share it.. Just like others who dont agree, have that same right.
I personally believe they hid the smith sighting as much as possible, and only ever promoted it to imiply he was tannerman, like I said before.

Now tannerman is no more, one of the main things most people didn't believe in, pieces added to his discription weekly even though memory fades with thim. It was always a big No No. One of the reasons i believe this is a big whitewash is the fact they got rid of silly tannerman story first, no one believed it anyway and it leaves a wider timeframe for abduction, which is all they are interested in (SY). I really hope Portugal come up trumps.

On the contrary the 'timeframe for abduction' has narrowed considerably.

In substituting Crecheman for Tannerman and eliminating him from the investigation, the Crimewatch 'reconstruction' of the movements of the Tapas 9 according to their own accounts showed there was only one window of opportunity for Madeleine to be 'taken' from her bed by person or persons unknown which occurred c9.50-9-55pm on the evening of 3 May 2007.

Those who have read the statements of independent witnesses available at mccannfiles.com will be aware that from c9.30pm a search for the child was underway and the table occupied by the Tapas 9 was empty of all except Dianne Webster.

IMO SY has come up trumps, particularly as the live interview of the McCanns in the studio after the filmed 'reconstruction' was shown indicated their tacit approval of AR's account of events and at no time did they indicate they were in any way dissatisfied with the investigation, or in disagreement with the 'revised' timeline.

A good point well put ultimathule, I for one am likely to put far more stock in the statements of independant witnesses (re table empty by 9.30pm) than from people with something to lose or gain.