Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Guest 15.05.14 14:52

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
By the way, I note how religiously you insist that the Smiths really did see someone, and why you go still further and suggest that Smithman saw Gerry McCann. Let me suggest that the reason you promote the 'Smithman' sighting so often and so vigorously is because you, more than most people, know that there never was a 'Smithman'

One for the mods I suppose. Isn't this against forum rules?

It's not even correct, I don't believe that Smithman saw Gerry McCann, so I'm certainly not going to suggest it.

Tony, please stop picking at this posters posts. I don't think for a minute WLBTS 'insists' anything, he has his opinions and voices them. I happen to think the same, as do many people here, so can we just stick to discussing the case and not personal opinions of posters. Thanks.

PS How does WLBTS know more than more than most people there never was a Smithman?

by Woofer 15.05.14 15:05

I doubt whether David Cameron or Theresa May give the McCanns a second thought - haven`t they got a country to run.

And to the contrary, I reckon if David Cameron tried to claim points by solving (and arresting) the McCanns, it would probably lose him votes, well the votes of the people that read the MSM anyway. It would be Oh poor McCanns - how could you arrest such lovely people who have suffered so much already - remember the mentality of the majority of Mirror and Sun readers.

PS - that sounded snobby about Sun readers, sorry - in fact my Son buys it sometimes (purely for the sport of course)

by whatliesbehindthesofa 15.05.14 15:12

Woofer wrote:I doubt whether David Cameron or Theresa May give the McCanns a second thought - haven`t they got a country to run.

And to the contrary, I reckon if David Cameron tried to claim points by solving (and arresting) the McCanns, it would probably lose him votes, well the votes of the people that read the MSM anyway. It would be Oh poor McCanns - how could you arrest such lovely people who have suffered so much already - remember the mentality of the majority of Mirror and Sun readers.

PS - that sounded snobby about Sun readers, sorry - in fact my Son buys it sometimes (purely for the sport of course)

That wasn't really my point - perhaps you've read Tony's post where he misrepresented what I said :)

My point was that the massive media coverage that would occur if the McCanns were suddenly 'in the frame' would help to knock stories about UKIP going up the polls after the Euro Elections off the front pages, and main headlines of the TV news media. I'm not suggesting it's to win David Cameron an election, those are Tony's words on my behalf. I'm not suggesting that Cameron will try to claim points.

by Seek truth 15.05.14 15:13

I quite enjoy reading Tony's comments.
Really helps to open my mind!
What a clever man!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 15.05.14 15:14

Seek truth wrote:I quite enjoy reading Tony's comments.
Really helps to open my mind!
What a clever man!

Is this relevant? I enjoy cheese on toast.

by Seek truth 15.05.14 15:51

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Seek truth wrote:I quite enjoy reading Tony's comments.
Really helps to open my mind!
What a clever man!

Is this relevant? I enjoy cheese on toast.

Oh so now I can't comment, what helps to open up my mind?

Anyway cheese on toast, It's your choice, if it it opens up your mind.
Oh yes, I find you quite clever too.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 15.05.14 16:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
I have left your post up in its entirety.

That's generally the way it's done when you quote, see there, I've left your post up in its entirety too!

Tony Bennett wrote:
I found it...shall we say...intriguing.

Glad that you found it interesting. Fascinating even? Enough to follow my posts with great interest perhaps?

Tony Bennett wrote:
So your 'take' is that Cameron will 'arrange' for the McCanns to be arrested (by whom, Scotland Yard, or the Portuguese Police?), shortly before the General Election and claim massive electoral credit for it - gaining millions of votes and sweeping to power?

Saying: "Look, the £15 million investigation I set up, all those helicopters flying over Praia da Luz, all those mobile 'phone searches by Redwood and his team, have all paid off!"

Mmmm, no .... that's not what I wrote. Where did I write that?

Tony Bennett wrote:
Er, I think the electorate might then start to ponder why Clarence Mitchell, who has promoted the abduction for 7 years, was slotted in to Cameron's high-powered Communications Department in 2010, as assistant to Murdoch man Andy Coulson, and why Cameron and his party installed Mitchell as the Conservative Party candidate for Brighton Pavilion.

Dontcha think?

Hmmmm, again no ... seing as 99.999% of the electorate have no idea who Clarence Mitchell is, I'd find that surprising.

Tony Bennett wrote:
By the way, I note how religiously you insist that the Smiths really did see someone, and why you go still further and suggest that Smithman saw Gerry McCann.

I'm not shy of giving my opinion, if that is what you mean. Is that what you mean? And as I wrote in my earlier post, I've never suggested that Smithman saw Gerry McCann. It is my opinion that Smithman definitely did not see Gerry McCann.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Let me suggest that the reason you promote the 'Smithman' sighting so often and so vigorously is because you, more than most people, know that there never was a 'Smithman'

If I 'know that there was never a Smithman' (which I don't, my opinion is that the Smiths were telling the truth, that Smithman was very real, and somebody we've all heard of), then surely this means that you think I'm involved in this whole affair somehow.

What are you accusing me of? I don't think it's fair to just throw that out in the open and not say what you mean. And I request that you withdraw your statement and apologise to me.

by comperedna 15.05.14 16:26

Knock it off please! There is more than enough stress caused by thinking about this case without having to worry about 'edgy' disagreements between people both of whom obviously mind about its being solved honourably. Disagreements... fine... 'edgy' ones not IMHO. Perhaps I should butt out...

by Guest 15.05.14 16:27

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Let me suggest that the reason you promote the 'Smithman' sighting so often and so vigorously is because you, more than most people, know that there never was a 'Smithman'

whatliesbehindtheSMITHS.

WBLS - are you Mr Smith if apparently you know more than most.

by Guest 15.05.14 16:29

I suggest that Tony and WLBTS stop winding each other up. I am sure other members here are fed up of it. I would kindly suggest you both ignore each others posts from now on, or take it to pm.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 15.05.14 16:54

Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindtheSMITHS.

WBLS - are you Mr Smith if apparently you know more than most.

Nope, I'm not Mr Smith, or Mrs Smith, or anybody to do with the Smiths. big grin

by Cristobell 15.05.14 17:04

Woofer wrote:I doubt whether David Cameron or Theresa May give the McCanns a second thought - haven`t they got a country to run.

And to the contrary, I reckon if David Cameron tried to claim points by solving (and arresting) the McCanns, it would probably lose him votes, well the votes of the people that read the MSM anyway. It would be Oh poor McCanns - how could you arrest such lovely people who have suffered so much already - remember the mentality of the majority of Mirror and Sun readers.

PS - that sounded snobby about Sun readers, sorry - in fact my Son buys it sometimes (purely for the sport of course)

I'm not sure thats true Woofer. The mood of the people I think has turned away from the McCanns, even those who never use the internet and rely on the tabloids are wondering why this couple continue to be front page news. There are very few letters of support in the comments sections of the MSM. The campaign to convince the public that the McCanns are saints has been scuppered by their constant need to go on television and explain themselves. For some reason they think each appearance will make them more likeable, and take them back to those heady days when Hello and OK magazines were chasing them for interviews. The public have never taken to them personally, the public were responding to the tragedy of the situation not the delightful personalities of the parents. I think the use of the term 'hater acknowledges the fact that in the characters of Kate and Gerry there is much to hate.

by Miraflores 15.05.14 17:19

I think you're right Cristobell. I think even people who believe the MSM story are now thinking that the constant PR is distasteful and doesn't do them any good. Contrast that with Ben Needham's mother who looks for her son without the fuss, or poor Winnie Johnson who never gave up looking for her son's body, all without whinging to the PM, whinging about the PJ, etc.

by angusallan 16.05.14 0:04

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindtheSMITHS.

WBLS - are you Mr Smith if apparently you know more than most.

Nope, I'm not Mr Smith, or Mrs Smith, or anybody to do with the Smiths.

who do you think gerry was carrying and where was he going?

by **sharonl** 16.05.14 0:21

What are the chances that anyone would carry an abducted child (dead or alive) across a holiday resort and risk being seen?

If Smith did see anyone with a child I am sure that it wouldn't have been Madeleine

by Woofer 16.05.14 1:08

sharonl wrote:What are the chances that anyone would carry an abducted child (dead or alive) across a holiday resort and risk being seen?

If Smith did see anyone with a child I am sure that it wouldn't have been Madeleine

Bit strange that he hasn`t come forward to eliminate himself though. So the conclusion may be either :-

a. The Smiths made it all up

b. It was someone up to no good.

by angusallan 16.05.14 2:18

Guest 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'

is invention 2 above to enable another person to be blamed and for murat to be let off?Hence the 6 pages in the book by kate?

by Guest 16.05.14 9:17

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindtheSMITHS.

WBLS - are you Mr Smith if apparently you know more than most.

Nope, I'm not Mr Smith, or Mrs Smith, or anybody to do with the Smiths.

In that case, are you Aaron Abacus of 1, Aardvark Avenue, Aberdeen?

(With apologies to other members, this process of elimination may take some time....)

by Guest 16.05.14 9:22

I will also deny being Mrs Smith - though I may have been so-called on the odd occasion many years ago; people of a certain age should understand the joke.

By the way, WLBTS, I'm glad that you have emerged from behind the sofa and have now shown your face in your avatar.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 16.05.14 9:30

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindtheSMITHS.

WBLS - are you Mr Smith if apparently you know more than most.

Nope, I'm not Mr Smith, or Mrs Smith, or anybody to do with the Smiths.

In that case, are you Aaron Abacus of 1, Aardvark Avenue, Aberdeen?

(With apologies to other members, this process of elimination may take some time....)

No, I'm Spartacus!

by Guest 16.05.14 9:33

WLBTS: your avatar. Is it you - or is there a story behind the picture?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 16.05.14 9:37

Ladyinred wrote:WLBTS: your avatar. Is it you - or is there a story behind the picture?

Yeah, that's me*. On my Facebook it comes with the caption: "Busker shocked by donation of baby."

The sofa was originally some distance from the wall, but I had a reason to cover up the floor behind it and so I pushed the sofa up against the wall, and deterred any investigators from moving it back by sitting down on it and playing the complete works of the Beatles on my guitar until they went away.

*Was me, to be accurate, said baby is now a bouncing 11 year old girl :)

by Guest 16.05.14 9:41

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:WLBTS: your avatar. Is it you - or is there a story behind the picture?

Yeah, that's me*. On my Facebook it comes with the caption: "Busker shocked by donation of baby."

The sofa was originally some distance from the wall, but I had a reason to cover up the floor behind it and so I pushed the sofa up against the wall, and deterred any investigators from moving it back by sitting down on it and playing the complete works of the Beatles on my guitar until they went away.

*Was me, to be accurate, said baby is now a bouncing 11 year old girl :)

Didn't see baby!

by HelenMeg 16.05.14 9:57

I am now convinced that SY are intent on performing a whitewash to some degree. They are certainly not wanting to pursue the whole truth. If you read Textusa post today which explains the relevance of Euclides to the investigation by the PJ. Textusa has concluded or theorised that Euclides was contacted on the night of May 3rd by Ocean Club personnel. Euclides worked at Quinta da Boavista golf course in 2008 and is likely to have died in the 'tractor' incident also at the golf course of Quinta da Boavista. Guess what - this golf course is linked to the OC and John Geraghty - him who gave the keys to the church to the Mc Canns and stored their hire car.

Its all starting to become clearer, the reasons why SY wanted to distance themselves from Euclides involvement. What is fantastic is that this indicates PJ is on the right track and getting there slowly but surely..

I is really worth reading Textusa's post today - excellent sleuth work

by whatliesbehindthesofa 16.05.14 10:01

HelenMeg wrote:I am now convinced that SY are intent on performing a whitewash to some degree. They are certainly not wanting to pursue the whole truth. If you read Textusa post today which explains the relevance of Euclides to the investigation by the PJ. Textusa has concluded or theorised that Euclides was contacted on the night of May 3rd by Ocean Club personnel. Euclides worked at Quinta da Boavista golf course in 2008 and is likely to have died in the 'tractor' incident also at the golf course of Quinta da Boavista. Guess what - this golf course is linked to the OC and John Geraghty - him who gave the keys to the church to the Mc Canns and stored their hire car.

Its all starting to become clearer, the reasons why SY wanted to distance themselves from Euclides involvement. What is fantastic is that this indicates PJ is on the right track and getting there slowly but surely..

I is really worth reading Textusa's post today - excellent sleuth work

Haven't read it yet - I will later - but most of that looks like assumptions to me.