Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

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.

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

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

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!"

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?

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.

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'

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'

Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindtheSMITHS.

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

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)

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.   

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

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'

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.   

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....)

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

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 :)

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

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

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.

HelenMeg wrote:
Well no-ones forcing you to read it - but I have always been of the firm belief that there are strong links between this case and business / golf course and therefore find it very interesting. Quite possibly it might be tedious and boring to some. Each to their own

HelenMeg wrote:
Well no-ones forcing you to read it - but I have always been of the firm belief that there are strong links between this case and business / golf course and therefore find it very interesting. Quite possibly it might be tedious and boring to some. Each to their own

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:
Well no-ones forcing you to read it - but I have always been of the firm belief that there are strong links between this case and business / golf course and therefore find it very interesting. Quite possibly it might be tedious and boring to some. Each to their own

I don't find textusa's blogs tedious or boring, I'm quite capable of absorbing long texts.  But when assumptions are posted as facts on this forum, I'm going to point out that they are assumptions.

HelenMeg wrote:
I clearly said that 'Textusa has concluded or theorised' so was not intending to post theories / assumptions as facts. Lighten up why dont you ! Its Friday 

Clay Regazzoni wrote:


It is interesting... but I could have summed it up in three sentences. In fact I've made similar speculations here in the past.

Andrew77R wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:


It is interesting... but I could have summed it up in three sentences. In fact I've made similar speculations here in the past.

Could you do the honour and post your 3 sentences.....

Looks a hell of a long read that Textusa blog.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:


It is interesting... but I could have summed it up in three sentences. In fact I've made similar speculations here in the past.

Could you do the honour and post your 3 sentences.....

Looks a hell of a long read that Textusa blog.

Sorry, missed this lat night as I did something radical and went to bed....   

Actually I can do it in one. Monteiro sufficiently of interest to PJ to justify reopening the investigation because phone records show he was in contact with one of the "players" on the evening of the 3rd.

That aside, Textusa claims that Monteiro's fatal tractor accident occurred at a golf course on the Algarve and not in the north as previously understood. I'm unaware on what evidence this claim is made. Also Monteiro must be more involved than previously assumed because his widow didn't want to show her face on camera. Textusa also claiming that he/she/they are the only ones ever to suggest that the OC are implicated in some way.

aquila wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think if you look here at magnification 20,000 (if you can't you need a new computer) you will see a load of swingers. If you can't see that you can always tune into Textusa and read 10,000 words where 10 would suffice.  

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Actually I can do it in one. Monteiro sufficiently of interest to PJ to justify reopening the investigation because phone records show he was in contact with one of the "players" on the evening of the 3rd.