Re: "Digging" with a helicopter (continued from 'digging at resort')

by Cristobell 12.05.14 10:47

I don't know why the Smiths took so long to come forward, but I believe their evidence. Mr. Smith may have known RM casually, but that would not be reason enough for him and his family to lie on Murat's behalf. The Smiths have stayed out of the limelight, they have never sought publicity and the two efits produced in the 2013 CW make perfect sense if the family members saw Smithman from different angles. He walked through the middle of the group, therefore the family members saw different profiles.

What is important about the Smith family sighting, is that they describe a doppelganger of Gerry McCann carrying a child that was a double of Madeleine and he was walking around PDL on the night Madeleine vanished. Imo, a coincidence too far.

by Guest 12.05.14 10:50

Tony Bennett wrote:

COMMENT: It is very clear to me that for whatever reason a key element of Scotland Yard's strategy at the moment is to focus the empty minds of the British journalists covering this story on the nonsensical Smith sighting, hence their deliberate choice of an area of ground for their dig, along what is claimed to have been on his route from Apartment G5A to the beach. How very convenient. Brunt has lapped this up from his hymnsheet. As a Murdoch-trained lapdog would do [/color][/b]

What I don't understand about the current "logic" is, even if you assume that there was a Smithman and he was Gerry and he was indeed carrying the body of the recently sadly deceased child, the Smith sighting was beyond the bit of land in question. So what "clue" is supposed to lie there?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 10:51

bobbin wrote:
or whether the photofit looks like Gerry, as has been indicated by Smiths, and duly kept (by the McCanns) away from public knowledge, for several years,

1. The Smiths never saw the man's face (if they are not fabricating the whole thing)

2. DCI Redwood did NOT say on the October BBC CrimeWatch programme that the Smiths had drawn up the e-fits. Listen very carefully to his actual words

3. The subsequent Sunday Times article, which I consider to have been reliably sourced, said that Kevin Halligen/Henri Exton and his 'men from Oakley International drew up the two e-fits. Goodness knows from where

4. Yes, the McCann Team 'sat' on these e-fits and didn't release them. AFAIK they have never explained this

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 10:57

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

COMMENT: It is very clear to me that for whatever reason a key element of Scotland Yard's strategy at the moment is to focus the empty minds of the British journalists covering this story on the nonsensical Smith sighting, hence their deliberate choice of an area of ground for their dig, along what is claimed to have been on his route from Apartment G5A to the beach. How very convenient. Brunt has lapped this up from his hymnsheet. As a Murdoch-trained lapdog would do [/color][/b]

What I don't understand about the current "logic" is, even if you assume that there was a Smithman and he was Gerry and he was indeed carrying the body of the recently sadly deceased child, the Smith sighting was beyond the bit of land in question. So what "clue" is supposed to lie there?

Clay, we are being led through a huge maze and have been taken through innumerable 'no through roads' on the way.

Think of this as just another apparently interesting avenue along the maze which we are going up, only to come back down again.

The terrible thing is that now we all are in the maze, there is actually no 'centre' or 'end' to it, we are just going round in circles.

Or maybe avenues.

Except for the media, who are overjoyed at a new, ridiculous, money-making front-page headline opportunity every other day.

Unless, perhaps, we really do draw everything back to zero - and find the exit to the maze

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 10:59

As I am unfortunately not in the possession of psychic powers I shall just have to wait and see what happens, and remain optimistic in the meantime.

by Gillyspot 12.05.14 11:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:
or whether the photofit looks like Gerry, as has been indicated by Smiths, and duly kept (by the McCanns) away from public knowledge, for several years,

1. The Smiths never saw the man's face (if they are not fabricating the whole thing)

2. DCI Redwood did NOT say on the October BBC CrimeWatch programme that the Smiths had drawn up the e-fits. Listen very carefully to his actual words

3. The subsequent Sunday Times article, which I consider to have been reliably sourced, said that Kevin Halligen/Henri Exton and his 'men from Oakley International drew up the two e-fits. Goodness knows from where

4. Yes, the McCann Team 'sat' on these e-fits and didn't release them. AFAIK they have never explained this

Sorry Tony, none of the Smiths claimed not to see the mans face & Peter Smith "States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.
— He adds that the group walked some metres apart from each other, therefore they would have seen the individual in different positions."

What concerns me is their insistence that "it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. " - Peter, Aiofe & Martin ALL state this. WHY?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 11:31

Gillyspot wrote:What concerns me is their insistence that "it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. "

This makes me wonder whether they thought it might have been Gerry at the start, but didn't want to get involved in a hornet's nest.

by galena 12.05.14 11:41

margaret wrote:
frost wrote:My worry is should any arrests take place and they be of anyone who took part in the holiday with all the media attention over the last 7 years could they claim they could not have a fair trial and indeed get off on a technicality and then perhaps end up being given new identities at the expense of the British taxpayer ?

I dearly hope not but it is a fear that I have .

if it does ever go to trial can you imagine the streets outside the courts ? I think the public backlash would be on a scale never witnessed before .

Have no fear. The Mccanns have lost all support. Do you really think the public will stand for all this money being spent to find out what happened to Madeleine only to have the very people SY blame get away with their crimes? To another country or new identities aswell.

No way!

I think SY have been drip feeding the possibility of the mcs guilt for a while, all that will happen is a media frenzy - but like we've seen this week... When it comes to not damaging the search the media stays quiet - they will stay quiet until any trial is over too. They will have their pound of flesh later.

I think the public wil be shocked but relieved a result was finally obtained. Crowds at court appearances can be controlled.

I have to say I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the theory that SY are involved in some extremely devious scheme to implement the McCanns, by denying that they are suspects in order to put them off their guard. What would be the point? - the McCanns are now in a fully entrenched position and will keep doing what they have always done - playing the media and keeping their expensive lawyers on standby. It's way way too late to try to lull them into a sense of false security. When Redwood said that the parents were not suspects I am beginning to think he meant exactly what he said. IMO Operation Grange is not and has never been about finding Madeleine or the true perpetrators - it has been a PR exercise right from the start.

by Gillyspot 12.05.14 11:46

galena wrote:
margaret wrote:
frost wrote:My worry is should any arrests take place and they be of anyone who took part in the holiday with all the media attention over the last 7 years could they claim they could not have a fair trial and indeed get off on a technicality and then perhaps end up being given new identities at the expense of the British taxpayer ?

I dearly hope not but it is a fear that I have .

if it does ever go to trial can you imagine the streets outside the courts ? I think the public backlash would be on a scale never witnessed before .

Have no fear. The Mccanns have lost all support. Do you really think the public will stand for all this money being spent to find out what happened to Madeleine only to have the very people SY blame get away with their crimes? To another country or new identities aswell.

No way!

I think SY have been drip feeding the possibility of the mcs guilt for a while, all that will happen is a media frenzy - but like we've seen this week... When it comes to not damaging the search the media stays quiet - they will stay quiet until any trial is over too. They will have their pound of flesh later.

I think the public wil be shocked but relieved a result was finally obtained. Crowds at court appearances can be controlled.

I have to say I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the theory that SY are involved in some extremely devious scheme to implement the McCanns, by denying that they are suspects in order to put them off their guard. What would be the point? - the McCanns are now in a fully entrenched position and will keep doing what they have always done - playing the media and keeping their expensive lawyers on standby. It's way way too late to try to lull them into a sense of false security. When Redwood said that the parents were not suspects I am beginning to think he meant exactly what he said. IMO Operation Grange is not and has never been about finding Madeleine or the true perpetrators - it has been a PR exercise right from the start.

Galena I agree with you sadly. Otherwise WHY wouldn't the Met (Operation Grange) be bothered that the E-Fits of Smithman were with held for 5 years?

"
A UK Met Police spokesman said yesterday any withholding of the report was “not an issue for us” because they were not investigating the case at the time.

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell was unavailable for comment last night."

http://www.thestar.ie/star/e-fit-of-maddie-kidnap-suspect-was-suppressed-five-years-ago-35302/

“not an issue for us” because they were not investigating the case at the time. - Massive RED FLAG!

by Markus 2 12.05.14 11:47

I fear there is not going to be any answers, if the Mcanns are guilty and not brought to justice then maybe it is in their minds they are going to have time to spend with their other children. Because if it was an accident and they get banged up ,what sort of life would the other two children have without parents, I know a lot here would say, a better one.

On the other hand if Murat or Malinsky or anyone else is involved is it ever going to be resolved or proven ,I doubt it. They are going to have to wrap this up one way or another pretty soon

by ChippyM 12.05.14 11:56

galena wrote:I have to say I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the theory that SY are involved in some extremely devious scheme to implement the McCanns, by denying that they are suspects in order to put them off their guard. What would be the point? - the McCanns are now in a fully entrenched position and will keep doing what they have always done - playing the media and keeping their expensive lawyers on standby. It's way way too late to try to lull them into a sense of false security. When Redwood said that the parents were not suspects I am beginning to think he meant exactly what he said. IMO Operation Grange is not and has never been about finding Madeleine or the true perpetrators - it has been a PR exercise right from the start.

If SY suspected the McCanns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case, why would they alert the McCanns to that? Remember the DNA in the hire car and the 15 markers being not quite enough to secure a conviction. The Mc's got very busy getting their own forensic reports to refute that evidence and the dogs. Maybe a better tactic would be to get conclusive evidence BEFORE declaring them suspects.
What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
The McCanns have also used intricate PR tactics to twist everything and anything said against them. If SY declared them persons of interest before building a conclusive case, why give the McCanns a chance to spin what they have against them?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 11:59

ChippyM wrote:
If SY suspected the McCanns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case, why would they alert the McCanns to that? Remember the DNA in the hire car and the 15 markers being not quite enough to secure a conviction. The Mc's got very busy getting their own forensic reports to refute that evidence and the dogs. Maybe a better tactic would be to get conclusive evidence BEFORE declaring them suspects.
What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
The McCanns have also used intricate PR tactics to twist everything and anything said against them. If SY declared them persons of interest before building a conclusive case, why give the McCanns a chance to spin what they have against them?

I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.

by AndyB 12.05.14 12:00

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.

I don't think they did, did they? They announced who the suspects weren't

by Gillyspot 12.05.14 12:00

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:What concerns me is their insistence that "it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. "

This makes me wonder whether they thought it might have been Gerry at the start, but didn't want to get involved in a hornet's nest.

Now that I can also agree with. I don't think they were lying as some do.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 12:06

AndyB wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.
I don't think they did, did they? They announced who the suspects weren't

Didn't say they did :) No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front. And if asked about specific people, saying 'no comment' would be as good as saying 'yes, they are suspects.'

by Cristobell 12.05.14 12:06

It looks as though SY are back in Portugal according to this article -5.40am Monday 12th May 2014 Police arrive in Portugal over McCann investigation. Looks as though they have ignored the birthday request.

http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2014-05-12/madeleine-search-continues-on-what-would-be-her-11th-birthday/

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 12:10

Cristobell wrote:It looks as though SY are back in Portugal according to this article -5.40am Monday 12th May 2014 Police arrive in Portugal over McCann investigation. Looks as though they have ignored the birthday request.

http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2014-05-12/madeleine-search-continues-on-what-would-be-her-11th-birthday/

To me this looks like an update to the original article 'Police arrive in Portugal over McCann investigation', it doesn't really mention whether SY are there today or not.

by AndyB 12.05.14 12:15

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
AndyB wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.
I don't think they did, did they? They announced who the suspects weren't

Didn't say they did :) No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front. And if asked about specific people, saying 'no comment' would be as good as saying 'yes, they are suspects.'

Yes, you're right. After I clicked "send" I started thinking about it. Previously I've been of the opinion that Redwood should have said nothing if what he wanted to do was to hide the fact that he was investigating the parents. But how would he answer the direct question from a reporter: "Are Madeleine's parents suspects?". I think the only thing he can do is lie and perhaps his announcement that neither they nor the T7 were persons of interest was just answering the question before it was asked

by sami 12.05.14 12:17

Markus 2 wrote:I fear there is not going to be any answers, if the Mcanns are guilty and not brought to justice then maybe it is in their minds they are going to have time to spend with their other children. Because if it was an accident and they get banged up ,what sort of life would the other two children have without parents, I know a lot here would say, a better one.

On the other hand if Murat or Malinsky or anyone else is involved is it ever going to be resolved or proven ,I doubt it. They are going to have to wrap this up one way or another pretty soon

Call me harsh but having two other children to care for is hardly cause to allow them unpunished for "loosing" a third child.

I doubt there is a criminal anywhere in the world that would not plead mitigating circumstances when it comes to avoiding a prison sentance.

Not one single adult in the whole of this world has been held accountable for a three year old meeting god only knows what fate. How can that be ? Those who should have looked after her didn't and those who could help her now won't. Shame on the whole lot of them.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 12:18

Gillyspot wrote:

What concerns me is their insistence that "it would not be possible to recognise the individual in person or via photograph. " - Peter, Aiofe & Martin ALL state this. WHY?

Good morning, Gillyspot, I have also read your other more recent post here saying you don't believe the Smiths are making this up.

I am sorry to have had to suggest this in the first place, many months ago, but I have to stick with it as all the evidence about the Smith sighting ponts that way to me.

I think it's been cleared up, at least on this thread, that DCI Redwood did NOT say the two e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family.

But what was so cunning and manipulative was that he gave every appearance of doing so in the broadcast - fooling a great many people, not least here on CMOMM.

I see an inconsistency here with Martin Smith on the one hand, like the others, saying he couldn't recognise the individual, but on the other hand saying with conviction that he had a clear enough sight to be absolutely sure it wan't Robert Murat.

With his face hidden by the child?

In the dark?

Seeing him only for a second or two?

With very poor street lighting?

I'm definitely not buying it.

Yet he is '60% to 80% sure', 4 months later, that it was Gerry McCann, based on Gerry carrying one of the twins on his shoulder in exactly the same way as everybody else does?

I'm not going to buy that one, either.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHY?

Either

(a) They are all telling the truth, and they saw absolutely or virtually nothing of his face because the child was in the way

or

(b) They are all deliberately lying.

I think you were drawing our attention to their insistence that they wouldn't be able to recognise him again. I think that's a very good observation.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 12:24

ChippyM wrote:
What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed...

Then by now, someone would have been arrested and charged, and there would be no need for DCI Redwood to spend tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money hiring an Alouette Mark III Portuguese military helicopter.

If the Tapas group had identified anyone responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, the Portuguese police would have all the evidence they need.

What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed?

It hasn't happened

by Markus 2 12.05.14 12:27

sami wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:I fear there is not going to be any answers, if the Mcanns are guilty and not brought to justice then maybe it is in their minds they are going to have time to spend with their other children. Because if it was an accident and they get banged up ,what sort of life would the other two children have without parents, I know a lot here would say, a better one.

On the other hand if Murat or Malinsky or anyone else is involved is it ever going to be resolved or proven ,I doubt it. They are going to have to wrap this up one way or another pretty soon

Call me harsh but having two other children to care for is hardly cause to allow them unpunished for "loosing" a third child.

I doubt there is a criminal anywhere in the world that would not plead mitigating circumstances when it comes to avoiding a prison sentance.

Not one single adult in the whole of this world has been held accountable for a three year old meeting god only knows what fate. How can that be ? Those who should have looked after her didn't and those who could help her now won't. Shame on the whole lot of them.

No I agree they should not be above the law.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 12:28

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front.

EXCEPT, that is, Britain's top police force, the Metropolitan Police - albeit they often done so by leaking to Clarence Mitchell:

* man with keys who worked for the Ocean Club

* three burglars

* 'smelly bin man'

* 6 Brits in a white van

etc. etc.

by Watching 12.05.14 12:29

ChippyM wrote:

What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?

1. If Mr & Mrs are Redwoods chief suspects why has he allowed others to be wrongly named in press as suspects?
2. If someone in TM has blabbed, especially best pals the Payne's I think Mr & Mrs would have figured that one out. These people Paynes and Mr & Mrs are extremely close, could Payne's pretend?

Redwood & his investigation a farce. Redwood stated categorically Mr & Mrs are not suspects.

by HelenMeg 12.05.14 12:32

ChippyM wrote:
galena wrote:I have to say I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the theory that SY are involved in some extremely devious scheme to implement the McCanns, by denying that they are suspects in order to put them off their guard. What would be the point? - the McCanns are now in a fully entrenched position and will keep doing what they have always done - playing the media and keeping their expensive lawyers on standby. It's way way too late to try to lull them into a sense of false security. When Redwood said that the parents were not suspects I am beginning to think he meant exactly what he said. IMO Operation Grange is not and has never been about finding Madeleine or the true perpetrators - it has been a PR exercise right from the start.

If SY suspected the McCanns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case, why would they alert the McCanns to that? Remember the DNA in the hire car and the 15 markers being not quite enough to secure a conviction. The Mc's got very busy getting their own forensic reports to refute that evidence and the dogs. Maybe a better tactic would be to get conclusive evidence BEFORE declaring them suspects.
What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
The McCanns have also used intricate PR tactics to twist everything and anything said against them. If SY declared them persons of interest before building a conclusive case, why give the McCanns a chance to spin what they have against them?

I'm inclined to agree with Galena's thoughts at this stage. Maybe a lot of us are guilty of letting wishful thinking raise levels of optimism. But what if, as Chippy, says ' SY suspected the Mc Canns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case?' Or any investigating police force for that matter? What happens on those occasions ? The police know what happened but haven't got sufficient evidence.. what are the options available?