Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I have borrowed this from somewhere else.

If Operation Grange were really a Whitewash, they would have found an innocent father with a child for SMITHMAN,
and left Tannerman forever untraced.
Or has DCI Redwood boobed ?  

Good innit ?

More than that.  It is a piece of Brilliant detective strategy by Grange. Or not as the case may be.

Smithman is ruled out as Gerry, because of the impossibility of the Window of Opportunity. Everyone says he was charging around like a mad Muslim bull at 10 pm.
So Smithman is irrelevant.  Either made up, or a father with a child.
Tannerman has been ruled out by Grange, because - well because it was nonsense all along, AND they have traced the man (Yeah !)
So now the McCans have . . errm,  urrr,  umm,   well nothing.

Nobody, No entry, No exit, No forensics, no fingerprints, no witnesses
No broken shutters, no open window, no whooshing curtains, no Last Photo, no recent photo from the family camera,
No witnesses, no  . . .
What they do have isMcMitchell - Lying about watches and mobile phones and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying and spreading dis-information - which we have proved is a lie - about the Last Photo, and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying about the Fund, and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying about sightings in India, and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying about a whole series of increasingly ludicrous "persons of interest",  and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.

I bet the McCanns now wish they had never set eyes on him, nor M3, Nor Ludicrous-Hellish-Lair-Edgar, nor Haligen, nor any of the others,
particularly the one who got out, and who has told the truth.  Which incidentally has been recorded by those who need to know for posterity.
and for production at the appropriate time.

His name is in the files, so it's not a secret. What he has told is not in the files, though is known to several.  Including Grange !

PeterMac wrote:I have borrowed this from somewhere else.

If Operation Grange were really a Whitewash, they would have found an innocent father with a child for SMITHMAN,
and left Tannerman forever untraced.

Or has DCI Redwood boobed ?  

Blimey - never thought of it from that perspective - now there's a cheery thought. Thanks  PM.

PeterMac wrote:
I bet the McCanns now wish they had never set eyes on him, nor M3, Nor Ludicrous-Hellish-Lair-Edgar, nor Haligen, nor any of the others,
particularly the one who got out, and who has told the truth.  Which incidentally has been recorded by those who need to know for posterity.
and for production at the appropriate time.

His name is in the files, so it's not a secret. What he has told is not in the files, though is known to several.  Including Grange !

A very tantalising end to your most enjoyable post PeterMac!    "The one who got out and who has told the truth..." It's too early in the morning for my brain, but I'm biting. Any further clues would be most welcome though!

...Henri Exton perhaps?

missbeetle wrote:...Henri Exton perhaps?

Could be...  he seems to have been the only credible member of the McCann's private team.  Ripped off by Halligen in the end, his reputation and record seem very good.  I suspect that the PJ or SY would take any reports or information he had very seriously indeed.

Born in Belgium in 1951, Exton had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police. A maverick and dynamic figure, he successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980's. While not popular among his colleagues, in 1991 he was seconded to work on MI5 undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen's Police Medal for 'outstanding bravery'. By all accounts, the charismatic Exton was a dedicated officer.

Are we getting warmer?

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I have borrowed this from somewhere else.

If Operation Grange were really a Whitewash, they would have found an innocent father with a child for SMITHMAN,
and left Tannerman forever untraced.
Or has DCI Redwood boobed ?  

Good innit ?

More than that.  It is a piece of Brilliant detective strategy by Grange. Or not as the case may be.

Smithman is ruled out as Gerry, because of the impossibility of the Window of Opportunity. Everyone says he was charging around like a mad Muslim bull at 10 pm.
So Smithman is irrelevant.  Either made up, or a father with a child.
Tannerman has been ruled out by Grange, because - well because it was nonsense all along, AND they have traced the man (Yeah !)
So now the McCans have . . errm,  urrr,  umm,   well nothing.

Nobody, No entry, No exit, No forensics, no fingerprints, no witnesses
No broken shutters, no open window, no whooshing curtains, no Last Photo, no recent photo from the family camera,
No witnesses, no  . . .
What they do have isMcMitchell - Lying about watches and mobile phones and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying and spreading dis-information - which we have proved is a lie - about the Last Photo, and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying about the Fund, and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying about sightings in India, and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.
Lying about a whole series of increasingly ludicrous "persons of interest",  and hoping that will make things better, when in fact it has the opposite result.

I bet the McCanns now wish they had never set eyes on him, nor M3, Nor Ludicrous-Hellish-Lair-Edgar, nor Haligen, nor any of the others,
particularly the one who got out, and who has told the truth.  Which incidentally has been recorded by those who need to know for posterity.
and for production at the appropriate time.

His name is in the files, so it's not a secret. What he has told is not in the files, though is known to several.  Including Grange !

That's cheered me up! Although I'm still not convinced of the true remit of operation Grange and as to taking some 3 years to get this far - working from the outside in seems a never-ending task to me. On the other hand, the public at large seems to be getting better informed as to the real facts.

Is it possible that the true purpose of OG was to obtain the information that was witheld by the PJ in order to make certain that there is nothing there that could/would 
incriminate / uncover the real protected non-McCann person or persons? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? 

Apologies if this ? has been asked b4?

ETA or even all the evidence files?

jhansigirl wrote:Is it possible that the true purpose of OG was to obtain the information that was witheld by the PJ in order to make certain that there is nothing there that could/would 
incriminate / uncover the real protected non-McCann person or persons? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? 

Apologies if this ? has been asked b4?

ETA or even all the evidence files?

Yep. Not only possible, but I believe probable.

PeterMac wrote:

I have borrowed this from somewhere else.

If Operation Grange were really a Whitewash, they would have found an innocent father with a child for SMITHMAN,
and left Tannerman forever untraced.

It is a piece of Brilliant detective strategy by Grange.

Or not as the case may be.

This story needs physical evidence of an abductor.

From the moment on the evening of 3 May when Madeleine's ripped-apart Activity Sticker Book was used to pen a timeline showing Jane Tanner's sighting of 'Tannerman' - until 9pm on the evening of the Crimewatch programme of 14 October when DCI Andy Redwood spoke in the same breath of both 'Crecheman' and a man seen by an Irish family, 'Smithman', that physical abductor was unquestionably TANNERMAN.

Tanner man did quite well. He survived for a very long time. Despite a veritable mountain of difficulties about Tannerman, in the official version of events, he survived for an amazing 2,356 days.

In a few short seconds, however, amidst dizzy talk of 'drawing everything back to zero' and 'a revelation moment', Redwood had decided, whether brilliantly or not, to ditch Tannerman for Crecheman.

The sighting at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner was NOT the abductor after all.

So, who could repalce him?

ONLY Smithman.

Yet despite the obvious problems with the Smithman sighting, Redwood promoted it, emphasised it and placed it as central to his strategy.

'We must find him'.

'Here are two e-fits of him' (except they weren't).

'Call us about him'.

'Here is our number'.

So long as the mysterious Smithman exists, it is possible to for the Met to close this case with the abductor being named as any person now dead - like Raymond Hewlett.

Or just left open: 'Well, we tried to find Smithman, but for various reasons, incuding the lack of co-operation from the Portuguese police, we've just not been able to'.

But is this not a simple story of 3 INVENTIONS?

INVENTION 1: 3 May 2007 - Jane Tanner invented Tannerman.

INVENTION 2: 16 May 2007 - the day after his friend Robert Murat is made a suspect, Martin Smith invents Smithman. He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.  

And finally...

INVENTION 3: Redwood's non-credible Crecheman, carefully crafted into a Crimewatch programme seen by millions.


From 2009 (Mentorn/Channel 4 documentary) to 2013, the McCanns slowly raised the possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were the same.

On 14 October 2013, Redwood effectively contradicted them, and said: 'No, it's NOT the same person'.

The whole abduction story therefore now hangs on the highly doubtful claims of the Smith family.

And if he really was the abductor, how did he parade, carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz, to be seen, it seems, only by one Irish family, and no-one else?   

No wonder Clarence Mitchell once described this as 'a complete mystery'

fleffer wrote:
The whole abduction story therefore now hangs on the highly doubtful claims of the Smith family.
And if he really was the abductor, how did he parade, carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz, to be seen, it seems, only by one Irish family, and no-one else?   
No wonder Clarence Mitchell once described this as 'a complete mystery'

And now we are being lead to believe that he was carrying, not only a child, but also a pickaxe and shovel, and dug a large hole in the car park which again, no one seems to have noticed !
Do Grange think we are stupid, or are they ?

PeterMac wrote:

fleffer wrote:
The whole abduction story therefore now hangs on the highly doubtful claims of the Smith family.
And if he really was the abductor, how did he parade, carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz, to be seen, it seems, only by one Irish family, and no-one else?   
No wonder Clarence Mitchell once described this as 'a complete mystery'

And now we are being lead to believe that he was carrying, not only a child, but also a pickaxe and shovel, and dug a large hole in the car park which again, no one seems to have noticed !
Do Grange think we are stupid, or are they ?

Yes.

We havem't worked out yet that Smithman had an accomplice (Accomplice-Man) in the vilage, who had already dug a hole, and was ready with a spade (pickaxe no longer needed) to fill it in.

Mind you, Redwood woud then have to explain the following:

* how 'Smithman' (if he ever existed) wandered around Praia da Luz without been seen by anyone apart from the Irish family

* how he wasn't seen or heard abducting anyone and left no forensic trace, and

* why he would steal a child from an apartment, only to bury her an hour later. 

I think the search is on for an 'Accomplice-Man'.

PeterMac wrote:

fleffer wrote:
The whole abduction story therefore now hangs on the highly doubtful claims of the Smith family.
And if he really was the abductor, how did he parade, carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz, to be seen, it seems, only by one Irish family, and no-one else?   
No wonder Clarence Mitchell once described this as 'a complete mystery'

And now we are being lead to believe that he was carrying, not only a child, but also a pickaxe and shovel, and dug a large hole in the car park which again, no one seems to have noticed !
Do Grange think we are stupid, or are they ?

But the tide was right out at 10pm - more access to sand or the shingley area beneath the rock.  Not that I believe ANYONE, including the Mcs, could dispose of their dead child in such a way.

fleffer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I have borrowed this from somewhere else.

If Operation Grange were really a Whitewash, they would have found an innocent father with a child for SMITHMAN,
and left Tannerman forever untraced.

It is a piece of Brilliant detective strategy by Grange.

Or not as the case may be.

This story needs physical evidence of an abductor.

From the moment on the evening of 3 May when Madeleine's ripped-apart Activity Sticker Book was used to pen a timeline showing Jane Tanner's sighting of 'Tannerman' - until 9pm on the evening of the Crimewatch programme of 14 October when DCI Andy Redwood spoke in the same breath of both 'Crecheman' and a man seen by an Irish family, 'Smithman', that physical abductor was unquestionably TANNERMAN.

Tanner man did quite well. He survived for a very long time. Despite a veritable mountain of difficulties about Tannerman, in the official version of events, he survived for an amazing 2,356 days.

In a few short seconds, however, amidst dizzy talk of 'drawing everything back to zero' and 'a revelation moment', Redwood had decided, whether brilliantly or not, to ditch Tannerman for Crecheman.

The sighting at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner was NOT the abductor after all.

So, who could repalce him?

ONLY Smithman.

Yet despite the obvious problems with the Smithman sighting, Redwood promoted it, emphasised it and placed it as central to his strategy.

'We must find him'.

'Here are two e-fits of him' (except they weren't).

'Call us about him'.

'Here is our number'.

So long as the mysterious Smithman exists, it is possible to for the Met to close this case with the abductor being named as any person now dead - like Raymond Hewlett.

Or just left open: 'Well, we tried to find Smithman, but for various reasons, incuding the lack of co-operation from the Portuguese police, we've just not been able to'.

But is this not a simple story of 3 INVENTIONS?

INVENTION 1: 3 May 2007 - Jane Tanner invented Tannerman.

INVENTION 2: 16 May 2007 - the day after his friend Robert Murat is made a suspect, Martin Smith invents Smithman. He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.  

And finally...

INVENTION 3: Redwood's non-credible Crecheman, carefully crafted into a Crimewatch programme seen by millions.


From 2009 (Mentorn/Channel 4 documentary) to 2013, the McCanns slowly raised the possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were the same.

On 14 October 2013, Redwood effectively contradicted them, and said: 'No, it's NOT the same person'.

The whole abduction story therefore now hangs on the highly doubtful claims of the Smith family.

And if he really was the abductor, how did he parade, carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz, to be seen, it seems, only by one Irish family, and no-one else?   

No wonder Clarence Mitchell once described this as 'a complete mystery'

But do we really need physical evidence of an abduction?  Ben Needham just vanished without trace - and most people accept as a fact that he was abducted.  Sure all these mysterious people carrying children helped to strengthen the case in the public mind, and bring sympathy for the McCanns.  But I'm not convinced that removing Tannerman and even Smithman from the picture would be enough to convict the McCanns.  In fact I think Redwood did them a favour getting rid of Tannerman and widening the window of opportunity for an actual abduction.

fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true.  There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths.  On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.

galena wrote:

In fact I think Redwood did them a favour getting rid of Tannerman and widening the window of opportunity for an actual abduction.

That could be true.

They must of realised that Tannerman was a complete fabrication and not a very good one as well. 

'Don't worry Mr and Mrs McCann. It's clear as day that your friend Jane was talking out of her arse. In fact me and the boys had a good laugh about that as it's absolute nonsense. Anyway, done you a favour. We have removed Tannerman out the equation so it allows more time for this abduction nonsense you have harped on about. You see if it was Tannerman then there would be no window of opportunity for this abduction. Come on Gerry, you should of thought of that. Anyway all is good now. The funny thing is we got Bob who has just joined the team to dress up as Tannerman and we took some pics. Even managed to find some Pyjamas in the M+S over the road that look identical. You owe me a tenner for them by the way. I'm sure the gullible public wont smell a rat about that one.

That Smith sighting is a bugger though. Phone been going off the hook saying its you Gerry. Don't worry though, we will come up with something. We are recruiting Gerry Mccann lookalikes at the moment. We will just do the innocent father thing again. Works a treat. 

Which night can i come round for my tea'

Woofer wrote:
But the tide was right out at 10pm - more access to sand or the shingley area beneath the rock.  Not that I believe ANYONE, including the Mcs, could dispose of their dead child in such a way.

Off the top of my head I can remember a child wrapped in binbags and shoved into a loft, another chopped up and possibly fed to pigs and a newborn baby flushed down the toilet.

I'm sure PeterMac could come up with more and far worse examples than those (please don't).

I agree that normal parents would not be able to dispose of their child in such a way but some parents are capable of evil beyond your wildest imaginings.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true.  There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths.  On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.

@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary' 

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

galena wrote:

But do we really need physical evidence of an abduction?  Ben Needham just vanished without trace - and most people accept as a fact that he was abducted. 

There are quite a few of us, however, who do not accept that Ben Needham was abducted

Tony Bennett wrote:

 

There are quite a few of us, however, who do not accept that Ben Needham was abducted

May i ask what your theory is on Ben please Mr Bennett......

I certainly agree that there is no evidence to be able to state what happened to him.

Andrew, my view is that his is an unexplained disappearance. I can't be more specific than that.

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true.  There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths.  On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.

@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary' 

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

Thank you Tony.  You have just admitted publicly that you are posting under the 'fleffer' account.  You didn't get anything wrong, it was fleffer.

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true.  There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths.  On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.

@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary' 

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

Why are you using an alias?

Andrew77R wrote:

galena wrote:

In fact I think Redwood did them a favour getting rid of Tannerman and widening the window of opportunity for an actual abduction.

That could be true.

They must of realised that Tannerman was a complete fabrication and not a very good one as well. 

'Don't worry Mr and Mrs McCann. It's clear as day that your friend Jane was talking out of her arse. In fact me and the boys had a good laugh about that as it's absolute nonsense. Anyway, done you a favour. We have removed Tannerman out the equation so it allows more time for this abduction nonsense you have harped on about. You see if it was Tannerman then there would be no window of opportunity for this abduction. Come on Gerry, you should of thought of that. Anyway all is good now. The funny thing is we got Bob who has just joined the team to dress up as Tannerman and we took some pics. Even managed to find some Pyjamas in the M+S over the road that look identical. You owe me a tenner for them by the way. I'm sure the gullible public wont smell a rat about that one.

That Smith sighting is a bugger though. Phone been going off the hook saying its you Gerry. Don't worry though, we will come up with something. We are recruiting Gerry Mccann lookalikes at the moment. We will just do the innocent father thing again. Works a treat. 

Which night can i come round for my tea'

You know I'm no longer convinced that Tannerman was a fabrication, at least not one initiated by Gerry. Surely it would be better to invent an sighting that tied in better with the groups timetable of checks.  Back in the old digispy days this was a major point of discussion - the difficulty of fitting Tannerman into the existing timelines as we knew them - he'd virtually have to have been hiding in the apartment while Gerry did his check. So real or fictional he had to go.  His removal suddenly makes the abduction theory so much more credible that - were it not for the cadaver dog evidence - I would be seriously wondering are actually telling the truth about one thing - that they have no idea where their daughter is ...

I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman - but if they did it seems likely to me that there is no point in expecting any genuine resolution from SY.  If they can fabricate evidence they can destroy evidence as well ... The PJ really are our only chance.

Many think SY telling lies to secure a conviction is ok and any subterfuge is acceptable to ensure that aim and that Redwood is a wily tactician ensuring his case is cast iron before he strikes.

However his Crimewatch appearance has ensured the Macs will never see the inside of a court room.

Whether he has done this by stupidity or design, the result is the same.  Take the major plank of the abduction theory JT.  Many considered her possibly the weakest link but by Redwoods utterings he had made her the most accurate eyewitness in the history of crime.

It is just unfortunate she saw  an innocent man carrying his child and that is where the CPS case, if it ever had one, would always collapse.

It is the Macs fervent belief this was M's abductor they persist in this belief to this very day.

Redwood however insists that he has found this innocent holiday maker and ruled him out, but if charges were ever laid the Macs lawyer would insist on the holiday maker coming to court and answering questions under oath. 
imo
As this man does not exist, the Macs defence would declare Redwood is a liar and any evidence produced by him or his team is worthless.

But that, of course, is Redwood's brief to ensure there is no court case concerning the Macs.

mariola wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

fleffer wrote:He ('Smithman') goes on to be very useful in Kate's book, 'madeleine', as she devoted 6 pages to saying that Tannerman and Smithman were probably the same.

As has been discussed before this is simply not true.  There is only the briefest of mentions of Smithman in the back of the book, and no mention whatsoever of the Smiths.  On my e-book reader, a simple search for 'Smith' and 'Smiths' brings up ZERO results.

@WLBTS

You constantly try to seek to minimise the extent to which the McCanns suggested that Tannerman and Smithman were the same. I do not know why you do this.

As you must know, these are the facts:

1. The suggestion that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same was made by the McCann Team over 5 years ago, in the Mentorn/Channel 5 'Mockumentary' 

2. In Kate's book (2011), again as you are well aware, there are three pages, including a chart (pp. 370-372), giving a detailed comparison of these two apparently different 'sightings', but pointing out how very similar they are

3. The Irish family's 'sighting' on the Rua da Escola Primaria is referenced on four other pages in Kate's book: 98, 328, 329 and 365.

The only thing I got wrong was that I should have said that Smithman was mentioned on SEVEN pages of Kate's book, not just 6

Why are you using an alias?

Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages' of comparison, Fleffer said 6 pages of comparison, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7 where Smiths were 'mentioned'.

bobbin wrote:
Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages', Fleffer said 6 pages, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7.

He said that it was the only thing that HE had gotten wrong - that 6 pages was wrong - and as you point out here, the post that mentioned 6 pages, which was also the post that I quoted, was written by fleffer.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

bobbin wrote:
Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages', Fleffer said 6 pages, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7.

He said that it was the only thing that HE had gotten wrong - that 6 pages was wrong - and as you point out here, the post that mentioned 6 pages, which was also the post that I quoted, was written by fleffer.

I must say i thought Fleffer was TB a while back. The writing style is extremely similar. 

None of my business though. 

Maybe TB has a valid reason to post under an alias. In fact with all that he's been through i'm surprised he just doesn't write under an alias full stop.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

bobbin wrote:
Not necessarily correct assumption here.... Tony said 'three pages', Fleffer said 6 pages, Tony may well have checked and found it was in fact, NOT 6 pages, (and not his 3) but 7.

He said that it was the only thing that HE had gotten wrong - that 6 pages was wrong - and as you point out here, the post that mentioned 6 pages, which was also the post that I quoted, was written by fleffer.

You're jumping to conclusions IMO. I don't need to argue on Tony's behalf, he can well do that himself, I am just looking at the facts as stated.
Tony found 3 pages of comparison. Fleffer found 6 pages of comparison. Tony found 4 more where Smiths were mentioned. Your argument was that there was very little in Kate's book on the Smith sighting. Tony stated that he should have said there were 7 pages on Smiths, whereas he stated there were 3 pages of comparisons as opposed to Fleffer's claim that there were 6.

It's all there and the conclusion that Tony is Fleffer is a 'jump' that is not an absolute conclusion, following close analysis of the statements 'actually' made.

It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book, she did not use the efits and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him, as they did with Tannerman.  The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting. Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book, she did not use the efits and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him, as they did with Tannerman.  The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting. Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.