The author in his prime

Thursday, 8 February 2018

Bollocks Debunked

For far too long Bennett has continued creating a false narrative entirely unchallenged. Now frankly I don't much care what he does - he is widely considered an utter clown - but I don't see why he should continue to shout his mouth off.

So let's consider this: This is a list of what Bennett describes as "contradictions" in the Smith statements. 

(Usual rules - my words in red)

1.  Creating two e-fits of different-looking men when they couldn’t possibly remember the face of the man
Two people, two e-fits of the same man. This has been confirmed by the police

When they said they saw this man, they all admit it was dark.
So? Plenty of crime happens during the hours of darkness

When they said they saw this man, they all admit the street lighting was ‘weak’
So? People tend not to commit crime when they are lit up like a Christmas tree

They only saw him for a few seconds at the most.
So? Generally, criminally don't hang around to take selfies

Most of the Smiths say the man’s face was partly obscured, either by him putting his head down, or because the child’s face was obscuring his.
 Most? Well, only three of them made statements

Here is what Aoife said:
''Personal Description: 
(1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal complexion, normal physique, around 1.70/1.75 metres in height. At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember. She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not look at his ears. His hair was thick, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.''

Here is what Martin said:
"As regards the description of the individual who was carrying the girl he said: Caucasian, around 175 to 180cm in height. He appeared to be about 34/35 years old. He had a normal complexion, rather slim. His hair was short, in a normal male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark brown or lighter in tone. He did not use glasses nor did he have a beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good."

Here is what Peter said:
"As regards the description of the individual carrying the girl he says: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm in height. He was around 35, or older. Slightly brown skin as a result of sun exposure. He had a normal complexion, in good form. He had short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or if he had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad."
"He adds that the individual did not try to hide his face or lower his gaze."

So, let's look at the lies, shall we?

None of them said the man lowered his gaze or that his face was partly obscured. Peter even specifically stated the opposite.

They were all able to describe the man in such a way that they must have seen his face in full.

Each of the Smiths said they would never be able to reocgnise him again
Aoife said: "When asked, she says that she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child."
Martin said: "He says that it would not possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph."
Peter said "He says that it would not be possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph."

The crucial word here is ''never''

You have added that word, which does not appear in any account. They were asked if they would recognise the man and they said no, or probably not. Presumably, you added it in a failed attempt to strengthen your position.


However - assisting with an E-fit does not require a commitment from the observer that they would be able to recognise the suspect. What is absolutely clear is that, despite the brevity of the encounter and the poor lighting, they were all able to comment on his complexion, his age, his hair colour. and two of them were able to describe him as clean shaven. That provides the opportunity for them to try to pick out the features most similar to those which they observed.

Compiling an e-fit allows the operator to produce what is referred to as a "type-likeness" 

It is not supposed to be a portrait. It allows the witness to select the composite features which most resemble the person they saw. There is absolutely no doubt that it was a worthwhile exercise.

You have also claimed that producing two likenesses is confusing. This presumably is your uninformed, amateur opinion, as published research states the opposite and that a composite image formed from two or more e-fits is often more accurate.


Peter Smith said: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)
Newspaper report. You must have been a truly hopeless advocate in court if that is your standard of proof. Once again, identify and help with an e-fit are two different things

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ ,26 May 2008).
Meaningless. She provided quite a detailed description.

It is claimed that they drew up their e-fits in 2008, probably at least a year after they say they saw him.
You don't know which two members participated. Although the general rule is to compile E-fits as soon as possible, the passage of time does not render it a pointless exercise

They produced two-fits of contrasting-looking men.
That's why they seek E-fits from more than one witness
One of them, compared with the other:

  • looks older
  • has a ‘fatter’ face
  • has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)
  • has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)
  • has a much shorter nose
  • has a much bigger chin, and
  • has smaller ears.
I think you have very little understanding of the process. Once again, it is not designed to be a portrait, it is designed to produce a "type-likeness"

Perhaps you should have researched the subject? You clearly haven't.



2. Did the man lower his head?

Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”.

But Martin Smith statement “He put his head down”.
Another lie.

Martin made no such claim, which you have given as a direct quotation, in his first statement

This is what he said in his second:

A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him."

At no point did any of them indicate that the individual lowered his head to avoid being recognised, which is how you have misrepresented it. 

3.  Whether they would be able to recognise the man again if they saw him – and   Martin Smith’s changes of mind

Peter Smith: “We knew that what we had seen was so vague that we couldn't identify the guy”, (Drogheda Independent, 9 Jan 2008)
Newspaper. Seriously?

Aoife Smith: “At the time I saw his face but now I cannot remember it” (Statement to PJ).
All three of the Smiths told the PJ: “It is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph”.
Yes they did. So what is your point here?

For starters, it is perfectly possible to hold an honest belief that you would not be able to pick the person out, but then discover that in fact you can. Regardless, that's not what an E-fit is


Yet Martin Smith first said: ‘The man was definitely not Robert Murat’. Then, four months later, he said that he was sure the man was Gerry McCann.
So?
He knew it wasn't Robert, whom he knew by sight.
He never said he was sure it was Gerry McCann, he said he was 60/80% sure, and his memory had been jogged by a certain similarity which he observed.
A few months after that, however, he co-operated with representatives of the McCanns, who were looking for an abductor, and helped them draw up two e-fits of the man they said they would never be able to recognise again.
He co-operated with a firm of investigators who were actually being funded by Brian Kennedy. We do not know exactly how the request was put to him, but agreeing to help with an E-fit does not in any way imply support for the McCanns or belief in their version of events. What I find truly disgusting about you is that, as a solicitor, you are well aware that one 'side' may approach witnesses for the other side. Just to stress again, they were not being asked to 'recognise' someone, but to assist with a process.


4. What they saw of the child

Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…”

But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”

Martin Smith said: “The man didn’t speak, nor did the child as she was ‘in a deep sleep’,” but how could he tell she was asleep, let alone in a deep sleep, if, as Aofie says, she couldn’t see the child’s face at all?” 
I could pull this apart and put back in the bits you have left out, but it is utterly pointless. Three different witnesses will have three different views of the child and three different recollections. There is nothing about their descriptions which is in any way contradictory


5. Was the child wrapped in a blanket?

Daily Mail,  3 Jan 2008: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”.
Oh seriously? Fuck off with the tabloid nonsense; I don't even believe the date if I read it in a tabloid. There is no contradiction


Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was notcovered by a blanket. 
So why have you introduced what some hack has written? Either stupidity or mendacity - which is it? 


6. The effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report,  3 Jan 2008)
More tabloid bollocks


Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”.
As you acknowledge, the voice is not that of Martin Smith, nor have you ANY evidence to suggest he collaborated with the McCanns on that recording.

But Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual…  (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)
Tabloid bollocks

Martin Smith: “I heard We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children].  They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.
Tabloid bollocks
 
7. Different reasons given for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)
Nothing in their statements to back this up. Media reports are NOT evidence, particularly as he stressed they had given no interviews 
 
Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)
This is a lie - there is no such passage in his statement. 

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008) 
Tabloid bullshit 

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special)   [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½  years] 
More tabloid bullshit 

8. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”
Quite possibly his memory had been prompted by another family member. In any case, scarcely significant 

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”
The recording is not of Martin Smith 

9. Contradictions by Martin Smith in what he said about the age of the man

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “Aged 35 to 40”
You are such a liar. This is what he said in his statement.
As regards the description of the individual who was carrying the girl he said: Caucasian, around 175 to 180cm in height. He appeared to be about 34/35 years old."

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “Aged approximately 40”
Quite honestly, I can't see much difference between 34/35 and approximately 40 

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “Perhaps 34 or 35”
It's not him. 

10. Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.
From statement, therefore a reliable source. 

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”. 
Media reports 

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”. 
Media reports 


‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”. 
Media reports

As Martin Smith told the police he had given no media interviews, and also served letters on the papers, you should disregard those reports. There is no contradiction. 

11. Not reporting his sighting despite thinking it could be Madeleine

Martin Smith statement to the PJ, 26 May: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”
He did not say that, yet you are using it as a quote. Why? 
What he actually said was:
"He only became aware of the disappearance of the child on the morning of the following day, from his daughter L***** who was in Ireland and who sent him a message or called the witness telling him what had happened. 
Now having knowledge of this situation he inferred that Madeleine could have been the girl who was being carried by the individual he saw."

You have been lying about this for a long time, haven't you?


Yet he and his family never reported the sighting until 16 May
Well, you invented the bit above, so this is irrelevant. 

12.  Did Mary Smith approach the man and talk to him?

Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Mary Smith approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’”
Tabloid bullshit 

Yet this is never mentioned by any of the Smiths when they made their statements to the PJ - and Mary Smith refused to give a formal witness statement.
It wouldn't be mentioned as she did not give a statement.

Nor did she REFUSE to give a statement - three of them returned to Portugal to give statements, we do not know on what basis it was decided who would return. When Mr Smith made a second statement she was asked if she wanted to give another and she said no. There is no statement in the PJ file for her and she was not in the party which returned, so the question of giving a second is more likely to be crossed wires with the Irish police. To claim that she ''refused'' to give a statement is bullshit 

Well, there we have it - your harassment of the Smith family is nothing more than smoke and mirrors or deliberate deception

You are a piece of work, Bennett. No contradictions, plenty of outright lies, padded out with shite from the media.

____________________

Baldylocks and the three bare(faced lies)

Baldylocks is a liar. He is also a manipulative con-artist.

And those are just his good points

The most repugnant part of his personality - and god knows that's up against some stiff competition - is his willingness to make the most foul allegations about completely innocent bystanders for no other reason than to remove objections to his lunatic conspiracy theory

So let's take a look at an example, shall we?

My usual format applies - my words are in red

Bennett was getting excited - only two more needed for a full house



Thank you once again Rogue-a-Tory for once again getting to the heart of the matter.
Or in other  words, for agreeing with you.


Is Martin Smith a totally trustworthy witness? - a witness of truth?
Yes he is and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. 


I dealt with this issue very fully in SMITHMAN 5, where I listed no fewer than TWELVE sets of major contradictions and changes of story in the Smith family's evidence.
That's all bullshit too. We might take a look at that later. 


This was Section 10 of my article:

 Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat
Here we go....... 



Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.
Okay - stop right there. That is the only version which matters, ie his sworn statement.  


Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”. 
This is a second-hand account, with Mr Smith referred to in the 3rd person from a newspaper, no less - a genre about as reliable as a Daily Express headline heralding the next Ice Age. Therefore, there is NO CONTRADICTION. 


‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”. 
This is a second-hand report on a news station and what is even more hilarious is that it isn't even a contradiction! He said in his statement he had met him twice, he is quoted here as saying he met him several times - the meaning is exactly the same. Therefore NO CONTRADICTION  


‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”. 
This is another newspaper report and not even a direct quotation. Even then, it is not even a contradiction! He had known Murat by sight for years. So, NO CONTRADICTION 



I invited members and guests to respond to those twelve sets of contradictions and attempt to explain them all, or even some of them. No-one has yet been able to do so.
I'll happily demolish all of them, you utter fraud, but I have no intention of doing so on your cesspit site 


Note above the bits I have highlighted in red: "MET" "SEVERAL TIMES" for "MANY YEARS". These statements are repeated and I believe them to be the truth. And let us recall how absolutely adamant Martin Smith was that the man could not be Robert Murat, and let us also recall that Martin Smith only jumped into life and reported his 'sighting' the very day after the man he had met several times over many years had just been declared a suspect.
Okay - here is another of Baldylocks' tricks. He has now inserted the word ''Many'', which does not exist in the quoted text and which is a transparent attempt to mislead. Mr Smith said he had met Murat several times and knew him by sight. So why would he NOT be adamant? He knew the man by sight; the man he saw was not Murat. 


In answer to @ ChippyM, having weighed up the evidence on Smithman for well over four years now, in my opinion the most likely  scenario that fits the facts is that Martin Smith and his children did a cunning and careful fabrication of a fake sighting.
That is completely libellous and not supported by any of the evidence. It is also pretty disgusting to falsely accuse a 12 year old girl of fabricating a sighting in an attempt to shore up your conspiralunacy.
Here I part company with Lizzy HideHo who says the Smiths must have seen someone that Thursday night, but not Gerry McCann and not anyone carrying away Madeleine. If they did fabricate this sighting, I do not know why. But I have many times given many possible reasons why people might lie.
If you are going to accuse someone of fabricating evidence you need to have a very good reason. "I don't know why" is not a good reason.  


I must say that I have seen some very bizarre statements in the past trying to explain that Smithman = Gerry McCann, but I cannot recollect one as so completely barmy as was suggested upthread by someone, namely that Madeleine died earlier in the week but for some inexplicable reason the McCanns decided not to parade her body around the streets of Praia da Luz until 10pm on Thursday 3 May, and at the very time that Kate McCann and her Tapas 7 friends were raising the alarm.
If we're going there, I have never seen an idea as barmy as your insistence that Madeleine died on the Sunday and that dozens of people conspired to cover that up for days, based on your idiot misreading of a weather report. 


One poster even suggested that the McCanns conspired to keep her body in cold water for a few days so that rigor mortis wouldn't set in.
Also ludicrous. But not as ludicrous as most of your nonsense 


These ludicrous suggestions show how desperate some people are to rescue the Smithman sighting from its proper place - the rubbish bin.
Your ludicrous claims show how desperate you are to discredit anyone whose evidence blows your idiot theory out of the water 


Next - Baldylocks' bullshit about the e-fits





Monday, 5 February 2018

Return of the Mac

Well, folks, it has been a while since we visited Baldylocks and his three spares. however, nothing seems to have changed, judging by his latest sniping rant at innocent witness Mr Martin Smith. 
(Although he does on this occasion have the correct Mr Smith, so I suppose we should be grateful for that)

This rant was prompted by an article in an Irish publication in which it was revealed that, contrary to reports, Mr Smith has never actually rescinded his claim that he is 60-80% certain that the man he saw in PdL that night was Gerry McCann.




So here we go - Baldylocks has repeated the same core claims three times on the same page, so he clearly has a bee in his bennett.

For that matter, for anyone still believing that Martin Smith is an honest witness - who has never for a moment changed his mind about his being '60% to 80% certain' that the man he said he saw at 10pm on Thursday 3 May 2007 was Gerry McCann - explain why:

1 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by talking to Brian Kennedy and his men (Dec 2007)? 
How does this, even if it is correct, amount to co-operating with the McCanns? He was asked if he would help in the compiling of e-fits. I would love to know how the fact that one of the images looks a lot like Gerry was supposed to be ''co-operating'' with him. And don't give me all the bollocks about it not looking like Gerry. It does. 



2 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by agreeing to help ex-MI5 Head of Covert intelligence Henri Exton (employed by Brian Kennedy) draw up efits of the man he said he saw? 
See my comments above.  


3 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by allowing them to put up an audio recording of a summary of his statement on their website (May 2009)?
Can you produce evidence that he was consulted or asked for permission? No? Then it is just another claim you have pulled from your arse 


4 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by allowing the McCanns to change the age of the man he said he saw to 34-35 (when he  said it was '35-40', and afterwards had said it was '40') (May 2009)? 
He has made no change to his statement. Unless you can produce evidence that he was consulted and agreed to the age being quoted, it is yet another ''pulled from your arse'' claims.


5 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by not challenging Kate McCann's account of how his description of an abductor matched that of Jane Tanner's description? 
This is the most baffling. 
Mr Smith, unlike you, is not an interfering busybody, desperate to get on the telly. He is a witness in an investigation and it would be completely improper for him to make any such statement in public. No wonder they kicked you out of the Law Society  


6 He agreed to co-operate with the McCanns by being interviewed twice by Operation Grange, once in 2012 and once in 2013, in preparation for the joint BBC-Met Police production, the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special of 14 October 2013 - a programme which elevated his description to that of the 'No. 1 Suspect'?
How is agreeing to be interviewed by the police ''co-operating with the McCanns"?  Frankly, that is a barking mad suggestion


7 He at no time until 3 February 2018, despite countless opportunities, ever reminded any journalist that he still believed that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007?   
Why should he?! 
He had to send solicitors letters to numerous newspapers so why on earth would he go blabbing to them about an active investigation? 


8. He failed for four years and four months to complain publicly that he had been thoroughly misrepresented on a BBC porgramme seen by 7 million people? 
Again, why should he? He appears to be essentially a very private man - he complained to the programme-makers but I see no reason why he would invite further intrusion by flapping his gums to the tabloids like you would. 



Finally, can anyone tell me how, given all that we know about Martin Smith, he could possibly ever be a credible witness, if Gerry McCann were ever to be charged with hiding Madeleine's body? 

I see nothing to suggest that Martin Smith would be anything other than a very credible witness, one who has not been running to the press and who has wisely kept his own counsel. What is more baffling is why you have such an issue with him and why you have targeted him for such abuse over the years. 

Saturday, 11 June 2016

That very Important reply from the Home Office in full........

The Home Office
Somewhere we are keeping secret
London



Dear Balding Loon,

Thank you for your letter and petition on the subject of the Madeleine McCann investigation. It is unusual for us to receive an approach where the covering letter is eight times the length of the petition and contains fourteen addenda, so it certainly caused a stir in the office. I am writing to you in my capacity as the most junior Minister we thought we could get away with. 

The government takes all such approaches very seriously. As I am sure you will appreciate, this is an ongoing investigation, so it would be inappropriate to comment, other than to say ''Mind your own business, you festering twat'' and note your concerns.

You are quite right in your assertion that considerable resources are devoted to this investigation; however as you are shafted on a monthly basis by Messers Sue-it and Grab, to a point where you cease to be a taxpayer, it is none of your business, Slaphead. 

As previously stated, this is an ongoing investigation, so I have forwarded your letter to Operation Grange, from whom I have received the following reply.

"Oh joy of joys, another missive from the Harlow Halfwit. Mary, warm up that shredder, petal. I've got a job for you....."

I do hope this addresses your concerns. Thank you for the interest you have shown in writing to the Home Office. If I may be of any further help, please do hesitate a long, long time before contacting me and bear in mind that I will have changed my name, address and phone number prior to moving to the Faroe Islands where I intend to live, disguised as a goat.

Yours faithfully,










Mr Percy Smallholding

Under-Under-Under-Under Secretary of State for Chewing Gum Removal.



Sunday, 22 May 2016

Coming soon........

Apologies for my prolonged break, normal service will be resumed soon. In the meantime, here's something to be going on with .............

http://randommomentsofutterstupidity.blogspot.co.uk/

Tuesday, 8 March 2016

Mahoosive Irony Klaxon

From the fragrant pages of the Cesspit


Therefore you are suggesting that all of (1) Kate McCann (2) Gerry McCann (3) Catriona Baker and (4) the proof-readers, advisers, lawyers and publishers of Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' are all either lying or mistaken in saying that the Lobsters crèche was based at the Ocean Club reception.

I am even more puzzled and astonished before at your reasoning