Easter Bennetts

Evening all.

Well, Baldy's long wait by the letterbox has come to an end - news has arrived courtesy of his 2,756th FOI request, seeking the answers to crucial questions such as "How much does Operation Grange spend on biscuits per month? Please give the answer in pounds, shillings and pence"

I am going to post extracts from the thread currently running on CMOMM about this, but I'll be leaving out a lot of the dross, which is to say, most of what Bennett wrote. Usual rules apply. 

I have received these replies (see below) from the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Information Rights Units.

I make these observations.

Of course you do

I have asked in the past, and asked again on 3 March, about how much has been spent by Britain on financial assistance given to Portugal for the very considerable degree of help they have rendered to the Metropolitan Police. Notably, this included the hiring and staffing of a top-of-the range Mark III Alouette Portuguese military helicopter.

And I think they told you to fuck off, didn't they?

It also included providing staff to supervise and conduct a number of rogatory interviews, I believe in 2014, and to provide security and supervision for the very public searches by officers of the Metropolitan Police of two patches of ground in Praia da Luz (which IIRC yielded a couple of rabbit bones).

Some of you may recall that I asked similar questions in the past. The Met Police basically said: “Don’t ask us, we get all our money for Operation Grange from the Home Office. The Home Office said: “We hold no information about payments to the Portuguese government”.

So there you are - you had your answer

I very much doubt whether Portugal gave all their assistance free of charge.

How the fuck would you know, Baldylocks? Are disgraced former trainee solicitors usually experts on government income streams?

I am sure the British government have paid them.

So what? No-one gives a shit what you are sure about. You were sure you were stalking the right Martin Smith, as I recall......

Maybe it is from some source of government funds that we know nothing about, maybe the Foreign Office paid them , who knows?

They do. That's why they told you to fuck off

Apart from that, the Met Police are not going to break down their expenditure, they say, because they are not going to provide any further ‘granularity’. I admit that was a word I’d not come across before.

That's because you're thick.

Dealing with the replies from the Metropolitan Police, we have answers on who is in charge of Operation Grange, how many staff are engaged on it, and their ranks, and the reporting line up to Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

What do you want - a cookie?

We are now told this about the controversial ‘Smithman’ efits, quote: “These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case”.

You also knew that already

Most CMOMM members will be able to spot a rather obvious flaw with this answer. Namely, Operation Grange wasn’t actually set up until two years and eight months after this, in May 2011!

I think it's perfectly obvious what they meant - the investigation now known as Operation Grange

Maybe I will need to ask the date Operation Grange was set up!

Doubtless you will - fire the shredder up again, lads, we have incoming!

So I will definitely be asking a supplementary question of the Met about this. I will ask who (or which agency) handed the dossier in (that should not be a confidential matter) and to whom it was handed and on what precise date. Undoubtedly the Met Police or some other police force will hold these data.

And they will say they have already answered you. Which they have.

Further, on the subject of the e-fits, the Met Police tell us this: “The efits do not form part of any current appeal”.

Maybe other CMOMM members will be able to work out better than I can exactly what this opaque phrase means.

Yes, please do don your tinfoil hat and share your own lunatic ideas!

I take it to mean this: Either:

a We know who the efits are, we have found ‘Smithman’, or

b We haven’t found him, but are no longer looking for this man, o

c The whole ‘Smithman efit’ thing was a gigantic scam and a fraud on the pubic in the first place, but we’re obviously not going to tell you that:

Of course you do. And I bet I know which one you'll choose

Their answer to my mind raises the question as to why the 30-second Smithman recording still remains on the McCanns’ website. Have not the Met Police told the McCanns that  “The Smithman efits do not form part of any current appeal”? 

They probably have. But they have no more say on what the McCanns choose to put on their website than you have, which is to say, absolutely none.

For the purpose of brevity, I am going to leave out the FOI reply, especially as Baldy has already repeated most of it. It's in the cesspit if you want it.

At this point, a posted named ''Phoebe'' replied

Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

 by Phoebe Today at 15:18

"The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do  not form part of any current appeal."


So much for Redwood's "Eureka!" moment and the subsequent paradigm shift in Grange's thinking (achieved after much expenditure of public funds)! I imagine more than one person has suggested the identity of Smithman based on the e-fits, but the Met doesn't like this suggestion. It doesn't sound like the Met. have plans to make any use of the Smith sighting. That certainly suggests that the Smiths were not part of any cover-up. I suspect Martin Smith's stubborn public reiteration of his opinion that Smithman was Gerry has scuppered any chance of using this sighting in a pro-McCann manner.

 Seems a reasonable enough comment. However, this happened:

Baldy didn't like this at all. Here is his response:

 Re: REPLIES from the Home Office & Met Police to FoI Act questions about Operation Grange expenditure & staffing & the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

 by Tony Bennett Yesterday at 18:17

@ Phoebe wrote:  "It doesn't sound like the Met. have plans to make any use of the Smith sighting".

REPLY:  You have so totally, utterly, missed the whole point of the Smith sighting.

Er - how about you fuck off? Your entire premise is built on a solid bed of farts, you gonad-faced old creep. There isn't a fact to be seen. In which case, anyone is at liberty to challenge the arse off you 

The Met Police already have made glorious use of the Smith sighting!

Bullshit. Seriously, Baldylocks, apart from the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that, what possible motive could the Met have to NOT solve this case? 

They did it between 9pm and 10pm on Monday 14 October, 2013.

That was the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, which showed a reconstruction of the events of Thursday 3 May which bore very little relation to the true events of that day.   

Why - because someone was pictured in the wrong colour cardigan? 

They did it in a programme heavily trumpeted in advance as a remarkable breakthrough, Redwood's 'revelation moment'.

It was certainly a breakthrough; the only significant one since the very start 

The marketing of this programme was so successful that audience figures showed an audience of between 6.7 and 7.1 million. 

It always gets a big audience 

They did it by pretending that the Smithman sighting was a genuine sighting of a potential abductor. 

Oh fuck off, you old fool. It was a genuine sighting of a potential abductor - the police do not just discount evidence on the basis that it might not tick every box. Any sighting of a child being carried or moved in a car would have been treated the same way until proven otherwise 

They deliberately used the Smithman sighting to solve a hitherto almost unsolvable problem: how to explain the multiple changes in the descriptions and identities given of a suspect abductor by Jane Tanner. First, he was swarthy, 'bundleman'.

No they didn't - not least because they removed him from the equation, you dozy pillock 

Next he was Robert Murat.

No he wasn't 

Next he wasn't Murat.

He never was 

Next he was 'Monsterman'/'George Harrison man'.

That never came from the police 

And so on.
Redwood claimed to have produced a man who for six whole years had withheld the fact that he might be Tannerman.

No he did not, you lying fucker. As you well know, it emerged that the man had been interviewed or had completed a questionnaire at the time and for whatever reason no-one either made the connection or the information was not conveyed to the Portuguese. AT NO POINT was there any suggestion that the man had withheld anything

Conveniently he had allegedly kept the very pyjamas his daughter had worn on the evening of Thursday 3 May.

That was never alleged either. A pair were shown which actually looked rather threadbare 

And of course, yes, his clothes exactly matched those of Tannerman and Sagresman (Krokowski). Who on CMOMM believes that this man really exists.

He was pictured in ''the type of clothes he would have been wearing"
Your claims about ''Sagresman" are utter fiction and the description was completely different in several key aspects, ie, all of them 

No, Phoebe, the Met Police made massive use of the Smithman efits. They used those efits to give Operation Grange a window of 50 minutes for the abduction to take place.

Did they bollocks, you patronising crapweasel 

Previously, they only had 5 minutes. Gerry McCann says he saw Madeleine alive at 9.10pm, while Jane Tanner swore repeatedly that she'd seen an abductor carrying Madeleine away at 9.15pm (although it seems she was too 'embarrassed' to tell Kate about it in case it made her upset).

Jane Tanner did not swear repeatedly that she had seen an abductor, or that she had seen Madeleine being carried away, or the precise time, or that she was too 'embarrassed' to tell Kate. Otherwise, spot on 

Redwood expanded the window for an abduction from 9.10pm to 10.00pm. This gives Operation Grange the opportunity - as I believe they have already trailed in the media several times - to invent an abductor who maybe murdered Madeleine between 9.10pm and 10.00pm.

And why would they want to do that? 

However unlikely that may seem, if the BBC and the Met say this is what happened, most of the country will believe it.

More than would believe your Fuckipedia, sunshine. 

If you doubt me, look at how the nation, and Kerry Needham herself, have swallowed hook, line and sinker the story put forward by South Yorkshire Police that a digger-driver, now dead, crushed Ben Needham.

You are a completely disgusting man. The family are satisfied that the scenario is likely to be accurate and you are not privvy to all the information they have been able to share with Kerry. Again, what possible reason would they have to be anything other than candid with her? 

The Smithman sighting has caused confusion right from the start.

No it hasn't 

Martin Smith's call to the police on the day after Robert Murat was made a suspect caused confusion.

No it didn't 

It led Goncalo Amaral and his team to think that Smithman might be the abductor.

Naturally 

After all, in 17 material respects, his description of him exactly matched those of both Tannerman and Sagresman.

They weren't in the slightest bit interested in 'Sagresman' being either man sighted - you invented all that bollocks, you need to remind yourself of that occasionally 

Then on 20 September 2007 he caused further confusion by saying he thought the man he saw was 60%-80% likely to be Gerry McCann,

That is total bullshit and how DARE you accuse a witness of 'causing confusion'? 

Then in December 2007, he caused further confusion by 'switching sides' as it were, and agreeing to work for Metodo 3, Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and the McCanns.

Another lie, and quite possibly libelous too. I might pop it over to Mr Smith, see what he thinks. It would certainly be considered contempt of court and possibly even attempted witness tampering to make those kind of statements about a witness in an open investigation

He co-operated, so we are told, in producing two e-fits, maybe with one or other members of his family - although there is no record of who actually helped to draw up the efits.

It has been confirmed, to YOU, in an FOI response that two members of the family assisted in making those images, so not only do you know what you wrote above to be a lie, you know that there definitely IS a record, which wasn't shared with you. Lying twat. 

He caused further confusion when he allowed his sighting to be used in the May 2009 documentary to suggest that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same - an idea now rejected by Operation Grange.

Another whopper - he did not ''allow'' anything, that film was made by the McCann's people 

The same confusion continued in Kate McCann's book, where she said the same: Tannerman = Smithman.

Then that's her problem, not Mr Smith's 

Then Martin Smith spoke to DCI Redwood once in 2012 and again in 2013 to help him with his media spectacular on 14 October 2013, sowing further confusion.

Further confusion for who? He spoke to the police, as I expect most of the witnesses did. Just because it doesn't fit with your alternative narrative is no reason to describe it as such 

Now even further confusion has been caused by Gemma O'Doherty's most unlikely claim that Martin Smith 'still stands by' his claim that he is 60% - 80% sure he saw Gerry McCann eleven years ago.

Really? So you are accusing her of lying too, are you? Careful, Tony, she can sue you too 

That's despite him and his family explicitly asking the public to look for the abductor and expressing great sympathy for the McCanns.

Bullshit - newspaper reports from papers he said he never spoke to. You know this, it has been pointed out to you before, you looning clown. 

One day, perhaps @ Phoebe, your eyes will be opened and you will see all this.

Oh, I think Phoebe sees it all very clearly, and may also have noticed that you are a bullying, overbearing shitgibbon 

@ Phoebe also wrote: "That certainly suggests that the Smiths were not part of any cover-up".

REPLY:  Is there any other credible explanation for his conduct, and for how both the McCanns and Met Police have successfully made use of his sighting for over 10 years now?

Yes. Phoebe is right and you are lying your arse off.

Then that human suppository, Aquilla, turned up to contribute, three times:

The Smith sighting is bogus.

Arsehole.


Part two follows tomorrow.