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

by HelenMeg 12.05.14 12:35

Watching wrote:
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.

In that case does anyone have rights to challenge this and ask for evidence that Mc Canns have been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement? Or in such a situation, are the UK public forced to swallow this? Just that, if this is the case, and Redwood brings this to a 'whitewash' close - what do we do next? I guess we still have the PJ who may come to another conclusion

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 12:37

HelenMeg wrote:
In that case does anyone have rights to challenge this and ask for evidence that Mc Canns have been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement? Or in such a situation, are the UK public forced to swallow this? Just that, if this is the case, and Redwood brings this to a 'whitewash' close - what do we do next? I guess we still have the PJ who may come to another conclusion

For my part I'm not in the business of "what ifs", I'll wait and see what the conclusion is before considering next moves :)

by russiandoll 12.05.14 12:39

quote TB : 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.

not for me, although the words above were not uttered, the context for me clearly sent the message that these were drawn up by the Smiths.

1. The Irish family were mentioned by the male CW presenter.

2. He then spoke with Redwood about the sighting.

3. The presenter then said that 2 of the witnesses helped draw up e fits. NOT 2 WITNESSES.

4. He was referring to the only witnesses mentioned in the context of this sighting, imo.

5. The inference I drew was that these were 2 members of the Smith family.

I can't see any reasonable way to conclude that 2 witnesses not from the Smith family were thrown into the mix as part of some cunning plan.

by russiandoll 12.05.14 12:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

Should you not be following that with IMO Tony, rather than stating that as a fact? It is simply your belief.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 12:48

HelenMeg wrote:
Watching wrote:
Redwood & his investigation a farce. Redwood stated categorically Mr & Mrs are not suspects.
In that case does anyone have rights to challenge this and ask for evidence that Mc Canns have been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement?

ANS: No, not at all. The only option for anyone who thinks that they have any evidence of a crime being committed by someone, which is prosecutable in the British courts, is to 'lay an information' to a bench of Magistrates, i.e. try to start a private prosecution

Or in such a situation, are the UK public forced to swallow this?

ANS: See above

Just that, if this is the case, and Redwood brings this to a 'whitewash' close - what do we do next?

ANS: See above

I guess we still have the PJ who may come to another conclusion

ANS: It is still open to anyone in this country, or anyone anywhere in the world for that matter, to bring to the PJ's attention any 'new and credible evidence' (their words) that any named individual is in some way responsible for the reported disapperance of Madeleine

by ChippyM 12.05.14 12:59

russiandoll wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
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

Should you not be following that with IMO Tony, rather than stating that as a fact? It is simply your belief.

Indeed, I was about to say that. When I say 'blabbed', I didn't mean what that person said was totally conclusive. Maybe again they told SY 'something' or had a suspicion with which they are trying to build a case

by noddy100 12.05.14 13:01

I think the McCanns held back the Smith info mainly because it looked like GM but also
because it moved the time to one that didn't suit their story

by ChippyM 12.05.14 13:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

Again this is opinion. Can any of us PROVE that SY has been informing Clarence Mitchell? It seems more likely to me that Clarence and his team make up a load of crap and SY are not particulary bothered as they have better things to do.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 13:03

russiandoll wrote:quote TB : 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.

not for me, although the words above were not uttered, the context for me clearly sent the message that these were drawn up by the Smiths.

1. The Irish family were mentioned by the male CW presenter.

2. He then spoke with Redwood about the sighting.

3. The presenter then said that 2 of the witnesses helped draw up e fits. NOT 2 WITNESSES.

4. He was referring to the only witnesses mentioned in the context of this sighting, imo.

5. The inference I drew was that these were 2 members of the Smith family.

I can't see any reasonable way to conclude that 2 witnesses not from the Smith family were thrown into the mix as part of some cunning plan.

OK, let me try to explain further, responding to the words in blue above.

Referring to your points 1 to 5, I agree that points 1 to 3 are factual.

We differ about the inference to be drawn from the statement: "Two of the witnesses".

The understanding of what was meant by that is crucial.

I agree that we were meant, in context, to think that he was referring to the Smith family 'sighting'.

This is where I say DCI Redwood has been very cunning and manipulative.

He could have made things plain by the presenter or himsef saying: "Two members of the family".

But he/the programme chose not to do so. And bear in mind that the Met and the BBC (whose programme cost them £1 million to make) would have agreed the wording of all of this programme, incuding the commentary on the controversial reconstruction, word for word.

I wonder, RD, if you would accept any or all of the following propositions:

1. That the evidence from the Sunday Times is that Kevin Halligen/Henri Exton/the private investigators drew up these 2 e-fits?

2. That no-one has ever explicitly said on the record that any of the Smiths drew them up?

3. That neither Redwood nor the presenter in CrimeWatch explicilty said that the Smiths drew up these e-fits?

4. That the e-fits look like two quite different people?

5. That the e-fits look like they've been developed on two quite different computer programs?

6. That the Smiths were insistent that none of them could recognise the man again from a photograph or otherwise?

7. That the Smiths say they saw him in the dark?

8. That the lighting at the time was very poor?

9. That the way the child was being carried obscured the man's face?, and

10. That they only saw him for a second or two, or a few seconds at the very most?

by Guest 12.05.14 13:06

IF Operation Grange ARE trying to get this case solved. Solved as in NOT a Whitewash. Then as i think most are of agreement with, that it would have to be 100% watertight.

If the Mccann's were ever brought to court then again everything would have to be 100% watertight. No margin of error. Nothing. Otherwise the case could collapse on some technicality. They would only get ONE chance at this.

Now given the sheer amount of people that one way or another seem to be implicated in the 'conspiracy / perverting the course of justice' side then the mind boggles.

(Would be interesting to see a list of all the names as it can't be far off a 100 when you break it down)

You only have to read many of the threads on this excellent forum to see the connections of people and how they could be linked or helped the Mccann's.

Now surely and obviously they can't charge every single person with perverting the course of justice but the sheer complexity of it all then i can sort of understand why it is taking so long and costing so much money to explore.

That's if they do have an honourable intention of solving this crime.

Otherwise if the sole purpose was TO HELP the Mccann's, then a whitewash would of happened a long time ago and everything wrapped up before the 7 year anniversary. Closure. END OF.

IMO of course.

by Garrincha 12.05.14 13:10

Re the Smiths: someone I know well in Ireland told me a lot of Irish people frequent PDL, and the word among them is: don’t get involved in this case because pressure will be brought to bear if you do

by Markus 2 12.05.14 13:11

noddy100 wrote:I think the McCanns held back the Smith info mainly because it looked like GM but also
because it moved the time to one that didn't suit their story

Not necessarily imo , not if Smith is friend of Murat, just an opinion.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 13:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
6. That the Smiths were insistent that none of them could recognise the man again from a photograph or otherwise?

7. That the Smiths say they saw him in the dark?

8. That the lighting at the time was very poor?

9. That the way the child was being carried obscured the man's face?, and

10. That they only saw him for a second or two, or a few seconds at the very most?

All these points can be explained by the hypothesis that the Smiths (not necessarily all of them) thought originally that the person they saw might have been Gerry McCann, but did not say this to the police because at the time the McCanns were not publicly 'in the frame', and they didn't want to get involved. At the time that Smith declared his '60%-80%' certainty, the McCanns were most definitely 'in the frame'.

I'm not suggesting that this certainly happened, just that it is a hypothesis that explains these 5 points, and indicates a different conclusion to the one that you have purported, which is that the Smith family are liars.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 13:29

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
6. That the Smiths were insistent that none of them could recognise the man again from a photograph or otherwise?

7. That the Smiths say they saw him in the dark?

8. That the lighting at the time was very poor?

9. That the way the child was being carried obscured the man's face?, and

10. That they only saw him for a second or two, or a few seconds at the very most?

All these points can be explained by the hypothesis that the Smiths (not necessarily all of them) thought originally that the person they saw might have been Gerry McCann, but did not say this to the police because at the time the McCanns were not publicly 'in the frame', and they didn't want to get involved. At the time that Smith declared his '60%-80%' certainty, the McCanns were most definitely 'in the frame'.

I'm not suggesting that this certainly happened, just that it is a hypothesis that explains these 5 points, and indicates a different conclusion to the one that you have purported, which is that the Smith family are liars.

re: "They didn't want to get involved".

In formulating your hypothesis about Martin Smith and his family 'not wanting to get involved', WLBTS, have you taken into account at all the fact that within hours of his friend Robert Murat being made a suspect, Martin Smith:

* got on the 'phone to the police

* told them he saw someone not very clearly but he was quite sure it was not Robert Murat, and

* flew out to Portugal in June with two members of his family to make statements?

Not wanting to get involved?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 13:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
re: "They didn't want to get involved".

In formulating your hypothesis about Martin Smith and his family 'not wanting to get involved', WLBTS, have you taken into account at all the fact that within hours of his friend Robert Murat being made a suspect, Martin Smith:

* got on the 'phone to the police

* told them he saw someone not very clearly but he was quite sure it was not Robert Murat, and

* flew out to Portugal in June with two members of his family to make statements?

Not wanting to get involved?

Sorry Tony, but I have not come to the same conclusion that you have regarding those points. I'm still not prepared to call a whole family a bunch of liars.

by Guest 12.05.14 13:40

I agree that there are questions to be answered as to why the family did not come forward immediately to report what they'd seen but I can't dismiss the whole lot of them as liars either.

by noddy100 12.05.14 13:43

The Met are so unpopular atm and so much press re corruption etc that
I would think to solve a case as big as this would do wonders for them PR wise.
If it does indeed become a whitewash then the back story must be something pretty huge
for them to sacrifice the glory

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 14:01

noddy100 wrote:The Met are so unpopular atm and so much press re corruption etc that
I would think to solve a case as big as this would do wonders for them PR wise.
If it does indeed become a whitewash then the back story must be something pretty huge
for them to sacrifice the glory

Yes - if it is a whitewash then it will be obviously the case to a large percentage of the population. Very dangerous game to play with public opinion so low.

by Guest 12.05.14 14:05

Put yourself in Mr Smith's shoes.

Your out having a lovely evening with your family. Few drinks, bite to eat etc. All good fun.

You come out of a bar and notice a guy walking down the street with a small child in his arms. Nothing unusual about that. You make a passing comment but it's ignored. Again nothing unusual about that.

You quickly forget about it.

Next day you hear about an abduction. Small girl goes missing. Suddenly PDL turns into a circus that has never been seen before. Police and Press everywhere. Searches being carried out etc etc.

You start to recall that YES we did see that person the night before carrying a child. Surely it was a holidaymaker though. No abductor would be silly enough to walk along the streets. They would be in a car and off... would they not?

The Media is going crazy. You start to see pictures of the 'distraught' parents being broadcasted around the world. Gerry giving his statements etc. The whole world 'believes' straight away that YES, this is an abduction.

You recognise Gerry. Hey that looks a bit like that guy we saw. Don't be silly it can't be. Yeah of course not. Silly me.

The media intrusion is getting ridiculous and you want to get the hell of there and get home.

In the back of your mind, you have niggling doubts that Gerry could be said abductor. Should we say something? Well lets wait, as i'm sure other people must of seen the same person too. Lets see if they come forward too. We don't really want the police coming here and we don't really want to get involved in this.

Nobody has come forward about that man we saw. The media are saying this is the man (Tannerman). Well that's certainly not who we saw is it.

Must of been an innocent holidaymaker then after all. Good job we didn't go to the police. Would of wasted there time.

Some time later.

Hey, just seen the father again on the news. The way he was carrying his other child then. Wow that does look really like that guy we saw doesn't it. Not certain but maybe 60-80% sure. What do you think.. Yeah it does. Do you think we should say something.

Yes i think we should now. That expat bloke i've met a few times. Robert. Looks like they are saying he could be the abductor. No way was it him that we saw was it.

Let me call them and tell them what we saw. We should of done this ages ago.............

ETA - i don't think a whole family, especially children, would lie to the police.

by tiny 12.05.14 14:13

my thoughts too.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 14:18

Good post Andrew77R, that pretty much sums it up for me too.

by frost 12.05.14 14:20

I have to say thats pretty much how I think events would have panned out

by bobbin 12.05.14 14:48

I absolutely agree that a multi-generational family, such as the Smiths, engrossed in their own happy family holiday would not be fitting candidates for creating a conspiracy, to perjure themselves (including their teenage daughter) to produce such 'wispy' and 'varied' observations, and to seek to deliberately sway the truth and the proper search for a child missing from her own family.

The 'wispy' observations from differing members of the Smith family are the 'head buried in shoulder' 'the refusal /lack of reply', 'the buttons on trousers' etc.

They made a few but simply expressed observations to the police, no erms, well's, distract, deviate, you know, like, sort of 'nothings'.

They came forward, they were not 'summoned' and they expressed their fears.

If the guy had been Robert Murat and as Martin Smith knew him, he would have said, Hi Robert, taking your little girl home ?

If the guy had been Robert Murat, he would not have sought to hide his face from the Smiths, unless of course, he was being criminal and if so why on earth would he not use a car to steal Maddie or whisk her away for, or from, K and G.

If Robert Murat was being set up by the McCs and friends, and the Smiths felt the 'concealed man' was NOT Robert Murat, they would be right to come forward following the claim that he was involved.

If they did this just to protect a 'friend' then their statements are very flimsy indeed. They are not robust enough to swing the vote away from Robert Murat and since 'over-egging' seems to be the order of the McCanns' day, then the Smiths would have had to be rather more convincing if they were intending that any 'lies to protect Murat' should be totally convincing.

Re the AR 'two witnesses' who could be a reference to the Smith Family, it could just be a linguistic thing that we are being hypercritical in analysing, or perhaps it could mean "other witnesses'.

We do not know if 'other people' saw the 'Smithman' and have not yet been divulged by the PJ.

True, if they had been Brits, then no doubt the papers would have been all over them like flies, big fat, noisy, invasive ones, the sort you will actually want to get out of your chair to have a go at with a big effective fly swat.

But suppose it has come forward to the PJ, local people/ witnesses even, and happy as it is, the PJ don't let the info out until the files are released.

So, perhaps the McCs would like to get their hands on such info if it exists, and perhaps the UK Met et alia, would also like to get this info, or perhaps they already have and that was what Andy Redwood might have been referring to. Who knows....

I do not think we can say that the Smith family statements were solely responsible for getting Murat de-arquido'd, so back to the premise that they more than likely were making known their observations, fears, and albeit they were weak observations, they were wanting to be putting the info with the police with which they could do as necessary and perhaps even on the basis that others may have called in and their own observations could help support or corroborate other witness observations.

by stillsloppingout 12.05.14 15:02

I think the fact that they were paid a visit to by kennedy and his lawyers also speaks volumes ? .
Have they been ALSO IMO paid off ,like the nannies

by Newintown 12.05.14 15:21

No doubt, this is why the Smith family didn't want to come forward in the first place, they did not want get involved in the "McCanns' media circus" and who could blame them.

Now that that the whole family are being called liars on a public forum must be excruciating for themselves, their family, friends, neighbours, and work colleagues. Who would want to come forward to be a witness to any crime if they will be vilified and called "liars" on a public forum in the future.

If I remember correctly when TB was in court, didn't the Judge mention something along the lines of what would happen in the future if the McCanns were found to have not been telling the truth with regard to the disappearance of Madeleine. I can't remember the exact words but he was not obviously convinced that the McCanns were off the hook 100%.