Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Guest 14.05.14 12:11

worriedmum wrote:
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.

by Clocker 14.05.14 12:11

For what my opinion is worth: WLBTS stated this subject had been discussed before. I presumed Fleffer was re-using a previous statement of TB, therefore TB was correct in saying he had said 6 as initially in a previous post he had and that was where Fleffer was getting his information from. IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.05.14 12:12

galena wrote:
I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman -

Yes, I sometimes post as 'fleffer'.

We are all reluctant to admit that the police would just fabricate evidence.

i.e. tell deliberate lies.

Yet British police forces and police forces the world over have done it many, many times before.

So what we have to do is simply assess Redwood's credibilty in stating that he has 'traced, identified and eliminated' Tannerman as the abductor - by producing 'Crecheman'.

We might now, for example, ask the following questions:

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?

2. Having anwsered that question, let us go on to consider how likely it is (as Redwood says is definitely the case) that there was not just one such lone man that night, but actually TWO (Crecheman and Smithman).

3. Then let us go on to consider the likelihood that in both cases (Crecheman and Smithman), the child (h) is female, (i) has blonde hair, (j) is/looks about 3 years old, (k) is dressed only in pyjamas, (l) the pyjamas are white/pink and (m) have a similar pattern to them.

4. Having considered all that, let us move on to think about the fact that in both these cases, the man concerned was described as (n) '25-40', (o) medium height, (p) carrying the child on his left arm/shoulder, (q) wearing a dark jacket and (r) light-coloured trousers.

I make that a total of EIGHTEEN coincidences.

5. When we have considered all of that, what is the probability that Crehceman had retained his child's pyjamas from six years ago?

6. Then - how likely is it that when he was on holiday in May 2007, he habitually walked about in a dark jacket and light trousers?

7. After that, let's ponder why, if he really was leaving the creche with no buggy, no warm coat for a child only in pyjamas etc. etc., he was not actually walking away from the creche, i.e. he was taking a much longer route than required, despite his child only being in pyjamas, and

8. Then, finally, what took him over 6 years to realise that he was Tannerman?

On a scale of 0 to 10, just how credible is Redwood's production of 'Crecheman'?

by mariola 14.05.14 12:22

Fleffer ,the problem is that when people use aliases it tends to discredit them when they are found out.It also devalues the Forum.Well spotted WBTS and shame on those who were prepared to deny.Have we not had enough denial in this case?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.05.14 12:22

Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book,

I think we've established that it was 7 pages

she did not use the efits

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Cristobell, DCI Redwood did NOT say these two (very different) e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths. Indeed they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, because none of the Smiths saw his face properly. We know from the Sunday Times and elsewhere that the e-fits were produced by 'the private investigators', presumed to be Halligen and Exton, and FWIW Exton says he helped to draw them up. No-one, but no-one, has said that the Smiths produced those 2 e-fits - and certainly not the Smiths themselves

and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him,

1. They promoted him in a documentary seen by millions

2. They promoted him in a book and a Sun serialisation read by millions

3. They also promoted him on their 'Find Madeleine' website.

These are inescapable facts.

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.

Clearly they did NOT stick just with Tanner's sighting, as the documentary, their website and the book make clear

Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

That can't possibly be correct as they have promoted him as mentioned above.

by sami 14.05.14 12:37

It s true to say they have not completely ignored Smithman. They have never given him the same definate identification and level of publicity given to Taneman though.

When I watched the documentary, i watched with the specific intent of seeing how they portrayed Smithman. I don't believe he was advertised, rather just ghosted in and if I were not aware of the background I would be confused as to who he actually was.

If Smithman is Gerry, they could not ignore him completely, this would be a red flag. So he is mentioned but glossed over quickly. Cover both angles.

If he is not Gerry, perhaps they concentrated on their own original Tannerman because they know regardless of what Smithman was or was not doing Madeleine could not have been there at that time. They know what happened so Smithman is of little concern to them.

If Smithman had some other purpose about which they are aware, then job done. We know about him, they have mentioned him and he has served his purpose, whatever that might be.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 12:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
Yes, I sometimes post as 'fleffer'.

Thanks for finding the honesty to tell us this Tony, it must have taken a lot of bravery to do so.

Oh, so when fleffer posted way back in that evolution thread, that was actually your good self? I can fully understand that it may be difficult to get very large numbers of people to take the Creationist side of that debate, I can totally see how fleffer came in useful there - good one! Now I understand how come you were both making exactly the same points!

I'll say no more and let's forget fleffer, my lips are forever sealed big grin

by Woofer 14.05.14 13:24

Poe wrote:
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.

I still find it hard to believe, anyway it was the step-grandfather and the uncle of the above cases, not the parents.

by russiandoll 14.05.14 13:59

quote Tony Bennett

I sometimes post as 'fleffer'

I recognised your style of writing, Tony, when I read a post by the above earlier today. Why are you using an alias for some of your posts? I don't get it...it is obvious that it is you, apart from the content, the style is a giveaway.

by Tilly-flop 14.05.14 14:12

BS has already posted a blog re TB and fleffer sad

by Cristobell 14.05.14 14:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book,

I think we've established that it was 7 pages

she did not use the efits

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Cristobell, DCI Redwood did NOT say these two (very different) e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths. Indeed they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, because none of the Smiths saw his face properly. We know from the Sunday Times and elsewhere that the e-fits were produced by 'the private investigators', presumed to be Halligen and Exton, and FWIW Exton says he helped to draw them up. No-one, but no-one, has said that the Smiths produced those 2 e-fits - and certainly not the Smiths themselves

and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him,

1. They promoted him in a documentary seen by millions

2. They promoted him in a book and a Sun serialisation read by millions

3. They also promoted him on their 'Find Madeleine' website.

These are inescapable facts.

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.

Clearly they did NOT stick just with Tanner's sighting, as the documentary, their website and the book make clear

Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

That can't possibly be correct as they have promoted him as mentioned above.

I don't think I would describe anything the McCanns have done as 'promoting' Smithman Tony. I have always got a sense that he has been included because it would have been too suspicious to dismiss him altogether. For the first two years after Madeleine vanished, he barely got a mention, and I always remember newcomers to the forum I used to post on being surprised when they stumbled on the Smith family statements, as they knew nothing about it before.

Faux police press conferences were arranged to publicise the face (or non face) of the man seen by Tanner, but there were no such press calls for the Smith family sighting, which of course astonished those of use who were following the case at the time - the Smith family consisted of 9 people while Tannerman was seen by Jane alone. Going back into the moment, there were hundreds of discussions as to why the McCanns were not publicising the Smith sighting, and of course, at that time we had not seen the efits.

The efits can only have come from the Smith family Tony, there are no other eye witnesses. We have only seen the first statements of the Smiths, we have no idea what memories may have been retrieved under specialist interrogation. Releasing those efits last October was a huge leap in the investigation imo, it was not a step taken lightly, and it has not helped the McCanns one bit, the anti groups on the social networking sites had a huge surge in membership following DCI Redwood's 'revelation' moment.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 14:28

Tilly-flop wrote:BS has already posted a blog re TB and fleffer

LOL, guess we really shouldn't discuss that one :)

Although, I got an honourable mention as 'Cesspit trainee pump operator & disinfector', which after a few minutes I realised was not an insult ;-)

by galena 14.05.14 14:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

Actually I've always been pretty sceptical - but the vast majority of people probably still believe he was abducted by gypsies though as far as I know no swarthy abductor was ever glimpsed carrying him away. People on forums like this will be more sceptical but IMO the vast majority of people are pretty gullible. People do disappear off the face of the earth sometimes, and unless they turn up alive or dead it's difficult to prove what really happened.

Right from the start I was totally convinced that Jane was lying about Tannerman, put up to it by Gerry. But looking back I think it proved more of an embarrassment to them than anything else, especially after the first disastrous Crimewatch appeal. I'm having problems seeing where it fits into the jigsaw as a whole.

by jeanmonroe 14.05.14 14:47

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?
-----------------------------------------------

(f) dressed only in pyjamas..

And IDENTICAL, according to JT, to the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' even though she didn't KNOW what pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' until Gerry 'told' her ( winkwink

), very, very much LATER, ( winkwink

) AFTER (

) her actually 'witnessing' the 'abduction event'!

WHAT are the 'chances' of THAT???

by Woofer 14.05.14 14:51

OFGS - Its no big deal that TB also posts under another name - it was always assumed by me that most people knew anyway. And its no big deal that he is sceptical about the Smith sighting. It can be discussed reasonably surely, rather than being sarcastic.

PS - not aimed at you JM

by noddy100 14.05.14 14:55

jeanmonroe wrote:1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?
-----------------------------------------------

(f) dressed only in pyjamas..

And IDENTICAL, according to JT, to the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' even though she didn't KNOW what pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' until Gerry 'told' her ( ), very, very much LATER, ( ) AFTER ( ) the 'event'!

WHAT are the 'chances' of THAT???

Also that teh bloke JT saw and the one the SMiths saw were both carrying a child of that age in PJs

by mariola 14.05.14 15:11

Woofer wrote:OFGS - Its no big deal that TB also posts under another name - it was always assumed by me that most people knew anyway. And its no big deal that he is sceptical about the Smith sighting. It can be discussed reasonably surely, rather than being sarcastic.

PS - not aimed at you JM

No sarcasm intended.He has been deceitful in using another name to bolster his argument against the Smith family evidence.
His claim that TM promoted the Smith sighting is ridiculous.
"In a time of universal deceit-telling the truth is a revolutionary act" George Orwell

by jeanmonroe 14.05.14 15:12

noddy100 wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?
-----------------------------------------------

(f) dressed only in pyjamas..

And IDENTICAL, according to JT, to the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' even though she didn't KNOW what pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' until Gerry 'told' her ( ), very, very much LATER, ( ) AFTER ( ) the 'event'!

WHAT are the 'chances' of THAT???
Also that teh bloke JT saw and the one the SMiths saw were both carrying a child of that age in PJs

But be fair, the chap 'Smithman', was a much BETTER 'parent' than Tannerman/Crecheman.

At least the child he was carrying had a LONG sleeve pyjama 'top' on, to keep the 'chill' out, as opposed to the child JT 'saw' who had a very, very SHORT 'sleeved' pyjama 'top' as paraded, and shown to the world's media, by G&K at their press conferences.!

by Guest 14.05.14 15:30

I see that 'Blacksmith' bloke has made a blog and copied the posts about the whole TB/Fleffer thing.

On twitter now as well.

Not sure what this Blacksmiths motives are.

by Guest 14.05.14 15:48

Andrew77R: it's quite obvious what BS's motives are.
When fleffer was posting a few weeks ago (can't remember the topic) it was apparent to me that it was TB posting. It's not a problem for me considering his history of the case and legal restrictions on what he can say. Thanks, TB for your hard work.

by Guest 14.05.14 15:51

It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him. Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic. ontopic

by Guest 14.05.14 15:55

Ladyinred wrote:Andrew77R: it's quite obvious what BS's motives are.
When fleffer was posting a few weeks ago (can't remember the topic) it was apparent to me that it was TB posting. It's not a problem for me considering his history of the case and legal restrictions on what he can say. Thanks, TB for your hard work.

Yes it was obvious that Fleffer was TB. Not an issue for me either. I admire the man's commitment and dedication.

Just don't understand why BS has got involved and by all accounts attacked this forum in the past.

I thought BS and the people on this forum were all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Anyway off topic. Apologies.

by tasprin 14.05.14 16:25

From what I remember of the Smith sighting it was first reported in the media back in 2007. It was the subject of much discussion in 2008. In one interview the McCanns were asked directly about the Smithman sighting but they dismissed it out of hand. The PJ inquiry under Amaral’s direction regarded the sighting as important but the McCanns actively ignored it. They eventually gave it credence in 2009 when they incorporated it into their documentary, ‘Madeleine was here’. However, the production made deliberate changes to Smithman’s appearance (effectively altering police witness statements) falsely giving viewers the impression that he and Tannerman were one and the same person. It took the McCanns two years to find a way to explain the Smith sighting, up to then it was strictly off limits. Over the years they have produced many e-fits of ‘suspects’ but they have never produced one of Smithman. Later that year, 2009, they suppressed Henri Exton’s e-fits of Smithman. Smithman was too expensive to follow up apparently - but he was oh so important in Kate McCann’s 2011 publication ‘Madeleine’. The fact she devoted several pages to Smithman, having studiously ignored him for the first two years after her daughter disappearance, shows how important it became for the McCanns to explain him away as Tannerman. Morphing him into Tannerman was the way to go. Jmo, but I think the Smith family are genuine.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 16:30

Yes, I agree with you tasprin, that seems to be an accurate account of the McCanns attitude towards Smithman. They couldn't completely ignore Smithman - that really would be telling. So they've had to work the sighting into their own little bit of mythology.

by Gillyspot 14.05.14 16:45

Not sure I believe in "Smithman" but I can't see an entire family (including youngsters) lying about it. Also IMO the McCanns' have done their best to confuse "Smithman" with "Tannerman" in the general publics eye (how child was carried, clothing etc) - Only THEY can answer WHY they have done this & I can't see this happening anytime soon.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 16:46

Andrew77R wrote:
...... and if they have done that. Then surely that is very telling. Smithman is not only real. Smithman is Gerry.

The Smiths were right all along.

Hooray to the Smiths.

My own theory and opinion

That's my opinion also. Who the person was carrying is anybody's guess at the moment though.

by Guest 14.05.14 17:01

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
...... and if they have done that. Then surely that is very telling. Smithman is not only real. Smithman is Gerry.

The Smiths were right all along.

Hooray to the Smiths.

My own theory and opinion

That's my take on it. IMO Who Gerry was carrying is anybody's guess at the moment though.

ETA - don't remember adding the 'IMO'! Surely 'that's my take on it' is another way of saying that its my opinion :) It isn't my opinion that 'that's my take on it', that doesn't make sense! ;-)

One of these:

"we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group."

(From BO'D's article, Guardian 14th Dec 2007).

by Guest 14.05.14 17:06

Ladyinred wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
...... and if they have done that. Then surely that is very telling. Smithman is not only real. Smithman is Gerry.

The Smiths were right all along.

Hooray to the Smiths.

My own theory and opinion

Deleted

ETA - don't remember adding the 'IMO'! Surely 'that's my take on it' is another way of saying that its my opinion :) It isn't my opinion that 'that's my take on it', that doesn't make sense! ;-)

One of these:

"we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group."

(From BO'D's article, Guardian 14th Dec 2007).