Re: Why I believe Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry by Pat Brown

by **Tony Bennett** 31.08.14 0:34

XTC wrote:I'm not sure where to put this so if the mods want to move it feel free.

Wandering about this website as you do I cam across something which was interesting re: The Smith Family.

The article was [about] the Estrela de Luz apartment block and its CCTV.

Apparently the CCTV tape was over recorded when the PJ got to it.

I don't know on what day or what time the tape was looked at.

Also does anyone know how long these tapes last until they are overtaped?

My point is that if the PJ had been told early enough about the Smith family sighting could they have got to the Estrela de Luz apartments quicker and retrieved the tape.

The reason being that if the man and child walked down towards Rua de Escola? ( terrible with street names ) and the Smith family had have walked up towards their apartment then both the carrier and themselves would have been on film.

Even if the carrier hadn't have been identified it would have given a more accurate time to the sighting. It's a shame the opportunity was missed.

But there is another significant point here which you may have inadvertently missed, XTC.

We know that some years before 2007, Martin Smith had bought an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex - and went there several times a year. We know he had met Murat 'several times' in Praia da Luz over a period of two years.

Now IF Martin Smith and his train of eight family members had indeed gone to Kelly's Bar as claimed between about 9.30pm and 9.55pm, and they had indeed seen a man carrying a child at about 10.00pm, then of course the Estrela da Luz complex CCTV would have captured them all returning there at about, say, 10.05pm.

As you say, it's a shame we don't have the CCTV, which could have settled the matter of what time the Smiths actually returned that night to the complex.

by fred c dobbs 31.08.14 1:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
XTC wrote:I'm not sure where to put this so if the mods want to move it feel free.

Wandering about this website as you do I cam across something which was interesting re: The Smith Family.

The article was [about] the Estrela de Luz apartment block and its CCTV.

Apparently the CCTV tape was over recorded when the PJ got to it.

I don't know on what day or what time the tape was looked at.

Also does anyone know how long these tapes last until they are overtaped?

My point is that if the PJ had been told early enough about the Smith family sighting could they have got to the Estrela de Luz apartments quicker and retrieved the tape.

The reason being that if the man and child walked down towards Rua de Escola? ( terrible with street names ) and the Smith family had have walked up towards their apartment then both the carrier and themselves would have been on film.

Even if the carrier hadn't have been identified it would have given a more accurate time to the sighting. It's a shame the opportunity was missed.
But there is another significant point here which you may have inadvertently missed, XTC.

We know that some years before 2007, Martin Smith had bought an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex - and went there several times a year. We know he had met Murat 'several times' in Praia da Luz over a period of two years.

Now IF Martin Smith and his train of eight family members had indeed gone to Kelly's Bar as claimed between about 9.30pm and 9.55pm, and they had indeed seen a man carrying a child at about 10.00pm, then of course the Estrela da Luz complex CCTV would have captured them all returning there at about, say, 10.05pm.

As you say, it's a shame we don't have the CCTV, which could have settled the matter of what time the Smiths actually returned that night to the complex.

What significant point has he inadvertently missed?.Mr.Smith said he knew Murat in a small place like PDL highly probable ,Murat had a house there the Smiths had an apartment there .What do you mean IF the Smith family had indeed gone to Kelly,s Bar as claimed? Why do you doubt their version of where and what they saw that night?The Father his son and his daughter reported seeing this man .Give 1 good reason why you disbelieve them

by Dido 31.08.14 2:26

Do you know TONY I have had enough of your Smith accusations I know this family they have so much integrity. Please be quiet. !! Oh and I now expect to be banned mega soon. HA Oh and please give the blue font a rest my dear is is rather patronising ..but suppose it makes you feel important. My profession is way above yours but I would never dream of disclosing

by jowie 31.08.14 8:14

fred c dobbs wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
XTC wrote:I'm not sure where to put this so if the mods want to move it feel free.

Wandering about this website as you do I cam across something which was interesting re: The Smith Family.

The article was [about] the Estrela de Luz apartment block and its CCTV.

Apparently the CCTV tape was over recorded when the PJ got to it.

I don't know on what day or what time the tape was looked at.

Also does anyone know how long these tapes last until they are overtaped?

My point is that if the PJ had been told early enough about the Smith family sighting could they have got to the Estrela de Luz apartments quicker and retrieved the tape.

The reason being that if the man and child walked down towards Rua de Escola? ( terrible with street names ) and the Smith family had have walked up towards their apartment then both the carrier and themselves would have been on film.

Even if the carrier hadn't have been identified it would have given a more accurate time to the sighting. It's a shame the opportunity was missed.
But there is another significant point here which you may have inadvertently missed, XTC.

We know that some years before 2007, Martin Smith had bought an apartment in the Estrela da Luz complex - and went there several times a year. We know he had met Murat 'several times' in Praia da Luz over a period of two years.

Now IF Martin Smith and his train of eight family members had indeed gone to Kelly's Bar as claimed between about 9.30pm and 9.55pm, and they had indeed seen a man carrying a child at about 10.00pm, then of course the Estrela da Luz complex CCTV would have captured them all returning there at about, say, 10.05pm.

As you say, it's a shame we don't have the CCTV, which could have settled the matter of what time the Smiths actually returned that night to the complex.
What significant point has he inadvertently missed?.Mr.Smith said he knew Murat in a small place like PDL highly probable ,Murat had a house there the Smiths had an apartment there .What do you mean IF the Smith family had indeed gone to Kelly,s Bar as claimed? Why do you doubt their version of where and what they saw that night?The Father his son and his daughter reported seeing this man .Give 1 good reason why you disbelieve them

Bumping this page whilst we await Tony's response

by Woofer 31.08.14 8:59

Dido wrote:Do you know TONY I have had enough of your Smith accusations I know this family they have so much integrity. Please be quiet. !! Oh and I now expect to be banned mega soon. HA Oh and please give the blue font a rest my dear is is rather patronising ..but suppose it makes you feel important. My profession is way above yours but I would never dream of disclosing

I doubt whether you will be banned just for disagreeing Dido.

As far as the blue font is concerned - it`s ideal IMO - how else can we distinguish between questions and answers? It makes for much easier reading when an alternative colour is used. Or is it you just don`t like blue - perhaps you would prefer red.

by palm tree 31.08.14 11:54

In all the past seven years, and all the amount of people directly or indirectly involved in this case, Mr Amaral, Mr Smith and Mrs Fenn are, IMO, the only witnesses that I think are genuine. It was Mr Amarals job, Mr Smith and Mrs Fenn reported what they knew and only to assist in finding Madeleine.
IMO only.

by XTC 31.08.14 15:09

palm tree wrote:In all the past seven years, and all the amount of people directly or indirectly involved in this case, Mr Amaral, Mr Smith and Mrs Fenn are, IMO, the only witnesses that I think are genuine. It was Mr Amarals job, Mr Smith and Mrs Fenn reported what they knew and only to assist in finding Madeleine.
IMO only.

It was not my intention to have a go at the veracity of the Smith family as I think that to get 9 people to sing from the same hymnsheet is
a difficult task. Not impossible but difficult.

I think they saw someone that night but none saw his face ( if it was a he?).

From Mr Amarals words he believes what they said was true. So much so that he wanted to bring them back to Portugal. That's good
enough for me.

For all we are used to CCTV in the UK it is a shame that more of it wasn't captured on the night in question or maybe the days before.

It is ( if it's a clear picture?) an objective way of gaining evidence. That's why in certain circumstances it very useful.

Just as an aside I've read that the Tapas Bar entrance didn't have CCTV. In order to stop any old drunk breezing in from off the
streets ( let's call them Mark Warner non paying undesirables) would you not have to have a pass key or card to get through the door?

If so would these cards register times entered and times left as well as who's cards were used? Or when you get one you sign for it?

Failing that as I say anyone could use the facilities and I'm certain that the payers would not have liked that.

Just a question though.

by **tigger** 31.08.14 15:20

Afaik there was no CCTV on that particular route where the Smith's saw the man. Textusa has done a long piece on it.

The CCTV at the apartment block would have shown the Smith family returning to the apartment which Smith co-owned with (according to his statement on 26/5/07 L........O.......).

According to Textusa the only CCTV on a direct route from 5a to the beach was near the church.

Which wasn't the route taken by Smithman.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.08.14 15:53

XTC wrote:
...I think that to get 9 people to sing from the same hymnsheet is a difficult task. Not impossible but difficult.

REPLY: But only THREE of them made statements. According to their own statements, none of the Smiths did ANYTHING until the day after Robrt Murat, whom Martin Smith had met 'several times', had been made a suspect.

And then it was only, allegedly, because Peter Smith 'phoned his Dad and said, 'Was I dreaming or something, but did we see a man carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Madeleine was taken?' Only Martin Smith, his son Peter and his daughter Aoife made formal statements to the Portuguese Police.

Mrs Mary Smith apparently spoke to the Irish Gardai but declined to confirm her evidence in person to the Portuguese Police. None of the other members of the family group made formal statements.

From Mr Amarals words he believes what they said was true. So much so that he wanted to bring them back to Portugal. That's good
enough for me.

REPLY: With all due respect to both you and Dr Amaral, to accept everything someone says as gospel is an unwise method of analysing any situation. In this particular respect (i.e. the value of the Smiths' evidence, Amaral was exercising his judgment. If we say: "I trust X whatever he says", we are at risk of falling into error.

Amaral way well have got 98% of things right, as I think he has, but he may also have got a couple of things wrong. You may have noticed that on another thread in the past few days Amaral's acceptance of the evidence of the nanny about the alleged high tea at 5.30om on 3 May has also been questioned.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.08.14 17:24

Dido wrote:Do you know TONY I have had enough of your Smith accusations

REPLY: You're not the only one. But I maintain my doubts because IMO there are good reasons for them, reasons which do not often get a reasoned reply from others

I know this family they have so much integrity.

REPLY: That is very interesting to know and potentially very helpful. I wonder therefore, with your knowledge of the family, whether you could help us all please with answers to all or some of the following questions:

1. Why did the Smiths wait 13 days before reporting their sighting to anyone?

2. Can you confirm that the first time they remembered their sightings was when Peter Smith 'phoned his Dad and said: "Am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child in Praia da Luz the evening Madeleine went missing?"

3. Martin Smith says he 'recognised' the man he says he saw in the night-time gloom of Praia da Luz 'by the way he was carrying his son' (i.e. on his left shoulder). Is that all? Given that most adults carry their children that way, what really made him so sure (well, 60% to 80%) that he'd seen Gerry McCann on that dimly-lit street over 4 months previously?

4. On what dates did Martin Smith or other members of his family meet or talk to (a) Brian Kennedy (b) Henri Exton (c) DCI Andy Redwood in 2012 and (d) DCI Andy Redwood in 2013?

5. What was said and agreed on each of those occasions?

6. Given that on the BBC CrimeWatch Show in October last year, DCI Andy Redwood produced two efits of entirely different men: A. Middle-aged man with receding hair combed back with fat rectangular face and - B. Much younger man with thin triangular-shaped face, which members of his family were responsible for each of those two very different e-fits?

7. OR - to put the question another way, does he or does he not accept that these two e-fits (shown by DCI Andy Redwood) were produced by him and/or other members of his family?

I expect to be banned...

REPLY: As far as I'm aware, you have not been. As is plain from the 'Smithman' debates, there is robust debate on the subject and no posters so far as I am aware have been banned merely for their views, one way or another, on the validity or otherwise of the Smith sightings

Oh and please give the blue font a rest my dear is is rather patronising ..but suppose it makes you feel important.

REPLY: No, it is done for clarity, and quite a few members here appreciate that.
My profession is way above yours but I would never dream of disclosing

REPLY: Good for you. You have done well, then, considering that in your first post here you wrote: "I will apologise in advance, I am dyslexic so if at times my grammar and spelling are a bit off you will know why".

You were quite interested in my status here, weren't you, with three recent posts asking: "How do you get special access??? I saw to then vanished . Exactly HkP surely only mods and admin can access this area ! Have I missed something here .....is TB a Mod ? I know ....I didn't either would like to know one way or the other. If he is not then is there an elite section only accessible to a chosen few posters".

by Gaggzy 31.08.14 20:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dido wrote:Do you know TONY I have had enough of your Smith accusations

REPLY: You're not the only one. But I maintain my doubts because IMO there are good reasons for them, reasons which do not often get a reasoned reply from others

I know this family they have so much integrity.

REPLY: That is very interesting to know and potentially very helpful. I wonder therefore, with your knowledge of the family, whether you could help us all please with answers to all or some of the following questions:

1. Why did the Smiths wait 13 days before reporting their sighting to anyone?

2. Can you confirm that the first time they remembered their sightings was when Peter Smith 'phoned his Dad and said: "Am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child in Praia da Luz the evening Madeleine went missing?"

3. Martin Smith says he 'recognised' the man he says he saw in the night-time gloom of Praia da Luz 'by the way he was carrying his son' (i.e. on his left shoulder). Is that all? Given that most adults carry their children that way, what really made him so sure (well, 60% to 80%) that he'd seen Gerry McCann on that dimly-lit street over 4 months previously?

4. On what dates did Martin Smith or other members of his family meet or talk to (a) Brian Kennedy (b) Henri Exton (c) DCI Andy Redwood in 2012 and (d) DCI Andy Redwood in 2013?

5. What was said and agreed on each of those occasions?

6. Given that on the BBC CrimeWatch Show in October last year, DCI Andy Redwood produced two efits of entirely different men: A. Middle-aged man with receding hair combed back with fat rectangular face and - B. Much younger man with thin triangular-shaped face, which members of his family were responsible for each of those two very different e-fits?

7. OR - to put the question another way, does he or does he not accept that these two e-fits (shown by DCI Andy Redwood) were produced by him and/or other members of his family?

I expect to be banned...

REPLY: As far as I'm aware, you have not been. As is plain from the 'Smithman' debates, there is robust debate on the subject and no posters so far as I am aware have been banned merely for their views, one way or another, on the validity or otherwise of the Smith sightings

Oh and please give the blue font a rest my dear is is rather patronising ..but suppose it makes you feel important.

REPLY: No, it is done for clarity, and quite a few members here appreciate that.
My profession is way above yours but I would never dream of disclosing

REPLY: Good for you. You have done well, then, considering that in your first post here you wrote: "I will apologise in advance, I am dyslexic so if at times my grammar and spelling are a bit off you will know why".

You were quite interested in my status here, weren't you, with three recent posts asking: "How do you get special access??? I saw to then vanished . Exactly HkP surely only mods and admin can access this area ! Have I missed something here .....is TB a Mod ? I know ....I didn't either would like to know one way or the other. If he is not then is there an elite section only accessible to a chosen few posters".

I would think that the likely reason the Smith family have not answered the kind of questions you pose to them here, is they are bound (like the Tapas mob) by the Super ~~injunction~~ (inaudible) placed upon all and sundry who are privy to the goings-on in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Just a personal opinion of mine.

by XTC 31.08.14 22:59

tigger wrote:Afaik there was no CCTV on that particular route where the Smith's saw the man. Textusa has done a long piece on it.

The CCTV at the apartment block would have shown the Smith family returning to the apartment which Smith co-owned with (according to his statement on 26/5/07 L........O.......).

According to Textusa the only CCTV on a direct route from 5a to the beach was near the church.

Which wasn't the route taken by Smithman.

In any large Corporation I would think that they would certainly have a number of certain rules such as Health and Safety ( it saves them from being sued if something goes wrong ) and that knowing who was where in the creche or any part of the Complex could be known.

I used to work for a big National company and every day we had to stick a card in a turnstile and that recorded our details and times in and times out etc.

This was just in case there was a fire or the building had to be evacuated. Made sense.

Yet it appears that all and sundry could drift in and out of the Tapas bar and have the use of the pool without being seen or perhaps to borrow a set of keys from behind the desk from customers who left them there for safekeeping? Fire and Security like the Missing Child alert must have been in operation at the Tapas bar as it was at the creche?

The question for myself is how did the diners/guests at the Tapas Bar get in and how did they get out if certain procedures were in place and
whilst a bit lax as they usually are in big Corporations how do you separate the paying holidaymakers from the ordinary plebs?

Tony:

I don't have infinite belief in Mr Amaral's infallabilty. He is human like all of us and makes mistakes like all of us.

You make good points about the timing of the remembering of his son.

I have read various articles that Mr Smith reported the person and child to the PJ three days later but they ( the PJ ) were not interested as they were at the time more interested in JT's 9.15 sighting.

Being as JT was not thought of as a credible witness by the original PJ team then it was not surprising that Mr Amaral would turn his attention to the Smith family sighting. I agree that if thirteen days had passed before the PJ found out about that sighting then trying to attain evidence via CCTV from the Estrela Apartment block or anywhere else perhaps would be ( and proved to be ) fruitless.

My reply does tie in with the above though which is that the Estrela Apartment block was an Anglo/Irish project with all its exportation of all
things British and Irish to do with crime and its prevention. CCTV comes as standard now in the UK and Mark Warner appears not to have utilised this concept as a company despite dealing with fairly well off tourists and those dodgy characters they may fall prey to. The forewarning referred to by some of the Tapas group by MW lends a bit more credence for the need of this CCTV facility I think In fact given the circumstances I wonder if they have CCTV now around the complex?

The creche cook has stated on Portuguese TV that she served the meals that night at the Tapas bar and was a few yards away from the table where the Tapas group dined. She also said that she had seen Madeleine throughout the week and that the creche children had their ' High tea ' at 4.30pm whilst it is believed by the PJ that the creche children ate at 5.30pm. With Madleiene's parents and the twins and possibly the nannies. Whether this lady was interviewed by the PJ I don't know. Perhaps SY will interview her but I wouldn't put money on it.

Anyway unlike a few other posters on here I am not of the view that questioning every thing and everybody's statements is a bad thing at all. We are all theorising because at the moment no one knows THE truth. What is annoying on the otherhand are the people in the media ( see the upcoming book ) who claim to KNOW it. They then take great offence when people doubt it. Cheeky that. Maybe at that point you need to bring in the intellectual heavyweights to ram home the point by force of intellect not fact.

Just saying - I know because I was there doesn't cut much ice with me neither. That's the classic Max Boyce defence. After telling a tall tale to the audience when they started to doubt its credibilty he used to say:

" I know because I was there!"

I wasn't so I don't know but there's no harm in trying to find out.

by Evening_All 03.09.14 9:43

A bit confused here, I thought Tannerman had come forward and was a British tourist collecting his child from the creche. Wasn't this DCI Redman's moment of realisation.?

by palm tree 03.09.14 11:15

Evening_All wrote:A bit confused here, I thought Tannerman had come forward and was a British tourist collecting his child from the creche. Wasn't this DCI Redman's moment of realisation.?

He did, but because he waited over six years to do so is puzzling. IMO, OG needed to add more time for the disappearing act to be believed, although they've not created enough time if you include the 9:30 check. Then there's Eddie and Keela too.
IMO

by Liz Eagles 03.09.14 11:17

Evening_All wrote:A bit confused here, I thought Tannerman had come forward and was a British tourist collecting his child from the creche. Wasn't this DCI Redman's moment of realisation.?

I'm a bit confused here too, I've never heard of DCI Redman.

by plebgate 03.09.14 11:22

DSI Sandra Pullman in New Tricks was played by the actress Amanda Redman.

Get Sandra on this case, solved in a jiffy and she always started at the beginning, no onions for Sandra my dears.

by joyce1938 03.09.14 13:27

Its not so strange that the man who was classed as tannerman didn't come forward at the time. Once he got home would give little thought of it all . as wefollow all this ,we have a better idea but it took us all time to get here . joyce1938

by worriedmum 03.09.14 13:35

joyce1938 wrote:Its not so strange that the man who was classed as tannerman didn't come forward at the time. Once he got home would give little thought of it all . as wefollow all this ,we have a better idea but it took us all time to get here . joyce1938

And he kept those pyjamas!

by joyce1938 03.09.14 13:54

Yea i agree the pyjamas were supposed to be same as maddies ,ofcourse they were not same at all ,looked more like the material in jackets almost fluffy . Cant imagine why that mock up was used at all , so poor.i wonder now what the idea was? I had 3 kids andin family often the jammies would pass onto smaller kid. This mock up of person ,seems rather odd. don't blame him ,blame the people that have made a mockery . joyce1938

by Gaggzy 03.09.14 13:59

worriedmum wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:Its not so strange that the man who was classed as tannerman didn't come forward at the time. Once he got home would give little thought of it all . as wefollow all this ,we have a better idea but it took us all time to get here . joyce1938
And he kept those pyjamas!

.... and the exact clobber he was wearing that night, according to Redwood.

Come on! Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

I say, 'Just as if ...'

Now I'm someone who makes my clothes last. I've got shirts in my wardrobe which are two years old, jackets maybe three years old, but expecting us to believe this bloke still had all the same clothes SIX years later!

Maybe he was a bit of a pauper and can't afford clothes? Hardly, because he could afford a family holiday in Portugal. And to still have a young girls' Pyjamas six years on.

Yes, Mr Redwood, we were all born yesterday!

by joyce1938 03.09.14 14:26

joyce1938 Or was he a figment of some ones imagination ? not sure myself BUT.

by Woofer 03.09.14 18:37

Dido wrote:Do you know TONY I have had enough of your Smith accusations I know this family they have so much integrity. Please be quiet. !! Oh and I now expect to be banned mega soon. HA Oh and please give the blue font a rest my dear is is rather patronising ..but suppose it makes you feel important. My profession is way above yours but I would never dream of disclosing

I must have missed this before but just noticed "My profession is way above yours....".

I never knew there was a heirarchy of professions - can you point me to this list so I can determine if a dentist is higher than a doctor or a lawyer; a prostitute is higher than a member of parliament; a vicar is higher than an officer. Is an IT technician higher than a mathematician etc. etc. ?

by j.rob 03.09.14 18:47

If Smithman is real and likely to be Gerry, then as far as I can work out the only reason for this would be that 'the plan' did not work out. And Gerry was left, quite literally, holding the baby. I have long suspected that Jez Wilkins' role may not be that of an entirely unbiased and disinterested eye-witness. It's just too much of a coincidence that he 'just happened' to 'bump into' Gerry at such a key time on such a key evening.

Of course, he may NOT have bumped into Gerry at that time or on that evening. Jez has given a number of conflicting accounts of where he was and what he was doing that evening. Which is obviously suspicious in itself.

Plus it is entirely unconvincing, imo, given his and his partners line of work (and Crimewatch background/links) that they were first learned of Madeleine's 'disappearance' at 1pm in the early hours of Friday morning when they were 'woken up' by Matt and the resort manager.

And both he and his partner 'went back to sleep' after Matt and the resort manager leave. What - as the story of the decade breaks? Yeah, right.

So I wonder, why was Gerry left holding the baby - even if the child he was seen carrying was not Madeleine but some kind of 'decoy' child to promote the abduction thesis. (Although this seems pretty desperate, but perhaps desperate measures were called for).

Given the massive media attention that the 'abduction' got. And the very early press coverage, I have to wonder what Jez's role is in all this. Two possible theories for me are that:

1. He was somehow part of 'the/a plan' to 'stage an abduction'. But maybe bailed out of whatever his role was when 'the plan' went wrong or backfired or he became aware that all was not what it seemed.

2. Jez was tipped off in some way about something. This may have led to his presence at OC during that particular week. He played a conscious role in averting/changing/flagging up some things.

Of interest is that he has never supported the Tanner-man sighting and he will not support having seen Jane Tanner when he was speaking to Gerry. This makes me wonder whether Tanner-man was, indeed, hastily concocted by TM as part of the 'botch' job. The fact that he is supportive of GM being calm and collected that evening suggests to me that he does not wish to point a finger of suspicion on GM or KM. But the fact that he flags up (a friend of GM's?) to the police - rasta-man' as acting suspiciously that evening between 7.30pm - 8pm suggests to me that there is/were people or persons who he did wish to flag up.

Was Jez trying to lead the investigation in certain directions but caved in under subsequent pressure from TM? (I know it is on record that he found detectives working for TM heavy-handed).

The fact that TM flag up Jez bumping into GM at such a key time indicates to me that at least certain members of TM want to drag Jez into the drama, possibly as a 'warning'.

And of course it is impossible to ignore the role that the (Murdoch) press may or may not have played in all this sorry affair. With Mirror reporter pointing a finger at Murat and so on.

So many people seem to be up to their necks in it all.

Still, I suppose that many of them made loads of money out of it. And Jez Wilkins Big Fat Gypsy series was a huge success on Channel 4. (This channel was also responsible for those hideous 'Madeleine was Here' series of highly debatable truth and merit.)

So he didn't come out of it all that badly either.

And the Tapas gang got some compensation too from the Express libel case.

As the old saying goes: 'when there is muck, there is brass.'

by j.rob 03.09.14 18:53

Jez was tipped off in some way about something. This may have led to his presence at OC during that particular week. He played a conscious role in averting/changing/flagging up some things.

I wonder if Jez's role was partly to 'tip off' the press. But, for whatever reason, TM ended up doing this as 'the story' had changed and Jez decided not to play (much) of a part in it. The article written by his partner Bridget later on in 2007, and which was supportive of the TM abduction theory, may have been both his and Bridget's attempt to detach themselves from the whole affair without attracting too much attention to their possible role or too much mud being slung in their direction.

Just a theory, as always.

by comperedna 03.09.14 19:07

Woofer - I saw that comment and was rather gobsmacked. I can only think it was banged off on the keyboard in anger by someone... I forget who... and I don't much care. It's a bit like the advice given to me: 'never send and email whilst drunk' not that I ever am drunk and I am sure that person wasn't either.

I hope TB won't mind my writing the following... TB is amazing, and sometimes even daunting and relentless in his analysis, and his tenacity, and he winds some people up who have different views because of it. Though he can be irritating sometimes, his heart is totally in the right place, and his worth is beyond rubies! This is meant to be a comment of admiration BTW.

by Woofer 03.09.14 19:27

comperedna wrote:Woofer - I saw that comment and was rather gobsmacked. I can only think it was banged off on the keyboard in anger by someone... I forget who... and I don't much care. It's a bit like the advice given to me: 'never send and email whilst drunk' not that I ever am drunk and I am sure that person wasn't either.

I hope TB won't mind my writing the following... TB is amazing, and sometimes even daunting and relentless in his analysis, and his tenacity, and he winds some people up who have different views because of it. Though he can be irritating sometimes, his heart is totally in the right place, and his worth is beyond rubies! This is meant to be a comment of admiration BTW.

by Boosey 03.09.14 19:55

Woofer wrote:
comperedna wrote:Woofer - I saw that comment and was rather gobsmacked. I can only think it was banged off on the keyboard in anger by someone... I forget who... and I don't much care. It's a bit like the advice given to me: 'never send and email whilst drunk' not that I ever am drunk and I am sure that person wasn't either.

I hope TB won't mind my writing the following... TB is amazing, and sometimes even daunting and relentless in his analysis, and his tenacity, and he winds some people up who have different views because of it. Though he can be irritating sometimes, his heart is totally in the right place, and his worth is beyond rubies! This is meant to be a comment of admiration BTW.

Good post comperedna - I heartily agree.

by Woofer 03.09.14 21:27

j.rob wrote:Jez was tipped off in some way about something. This may have led to his presence at OC during that particular week. He played a conscious role in averting/changing/flagging up some things.

I wonder if Jez's role was partly to 'tip off' the press. But, for whatever reason, TM ended up doing this as 'the story' had changed and Jez decided not to play (much) of a part in it. The article written by his partner Bridget later on in 2007, and which was supportive of the TM abduction theory, may have been both his and Bridget's attempt to detach themselves from the whole affair without attracting too much attention to their possible role or too much mud being slung in their direction.

Just a theory, as always.

IMO JW and his partner know more than they`ve let on. Watching JW talking on video he seems an `above board` bloke. His partner has obviously researched child trafficking in order to write a book about it. The flowery article she wrote for the Guardian defending TM is not her usual style of writing and seemed as though it was created for a certain type of reading public. And BO`D having worked for the BBC, Crimewatch - did she know Jill Dando or Nick Ross or heard gossip about certain people. She must have rubbed shoulders with police when producing these programmes - did she hear things?
Initially I had thought it possible for a 3/4 yr old child to be transported in a baby buggy - still not sure about this. But it would explain why JW and GM have to deny seeing JT (if she saw them in the process of something).

by roy rovers 03.09.14 21:48

Woofer wrote:
Dido wrote:Do you know TONY I have had enough of your Smith accusations I know this family they have so much integrity. Please be quiet. !! Oh and I now expect to be banned mega soon. HA Oh and please give the blue font a rest my dear is is rather patronising ..but suppose it makes you feel important. My profession is way above yours but I would never dream of disclosing

I must have missed this before but just noticed "My profession is way above yours....".

I never knew there was a heirarchy of professions - can you point me to this list so I can determine if a dentist is higher than a doctor or a lawyer; a prostitute is higher than a member of parliament; a vicar is higher than an officer. Is an IT technician higher than a mathematician etc. etc. ?

Woofer - I can categorically tell you that a pilot is higher than a miner.

by XTC 03.09.14 22:04

I'm not necessarily replying to any poster in particular.

Just asking a question that DI Redwood and his team should be asking themselves I think.

If SY now know who this man and child is. He and the child were ' bundling' across the top of the road
after coming from the creche. If JT's sighting has now been dismissed ( i.e she saw nothing -wasn't there
or whatever the dismissal was based on ) how come JW or GM never saw him 'bundling ' along.
Even if one had his back to the man and child one would have been facing up the road. Wouldn't he?.

Also did the bundleman remember seeing two men chatting down the road?

One of three would or should have seen the other(s).

Either that or the SY man and child is phooey?

Opinion though.