Easter Bennetts part 3

Evening all

Yes, he's back again.

I think what we'll do this time, as well as commenting on his nonsense, is highlight all the barefaced lies in his post.

 by Tony Bennett Today at 23:23

Two days ago I posed this question:

On 20 September 2007, Martin Smith made this solemn statement to an Irish police officer: "I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard [Gerald] McCann that I met that night carrying a child".

Let's drop the word ''solemn'' that you keep adding in, shall we? It was a statement

@ Phoebe, can you give me one really good, convincing, wholly persuasive argument as to why, barely three months later, Martin Smith was working for the McCann Team, talking to their investigation co-ordinator, Brian Kennedy, talking to Metodo 3 who were working for them, talking to Oakley International, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton who were all also employed by the McCanns?

Agreeing to speak to their investigators is not ''Working for them" as you well know

-------------------

I have seen several long replies by @ Phoebe, but not one that comes remotely near to answering the question.

Because the question is based on a false premise

Instead @ Phoebe asserts that Martin Smith is an 'ordinary man'.

An ordinary man living in Praia da Luz on the very night that Madeleine McCann is reported missing, who claim he sees, together with eight other members of his extended family, a lone man at 10pm at night carrying a young blonde girl clad only in pyjamas, does not - amid a 24/7 medias blitz over the next two weeks, fail to report his sighting to the police.

Oh really? Why - because you say so?

An ordinary man does not wait to be reminded by his son 13 days later, who thinks he might have been dreaming about this sighting.

Why - because you say so?

An ordinary man who has in effect completely forgotten about this sighting does not jump into action the moment someone he knows well has been made a formal suspect, and suddenly say with crystal clarity: "It definitely wasn't him".

Don't be ridiculous. He knows he saw a man. Equally, he knows that the man he saw wasn't Robert Murat.

And he did not ''Know him well"

An ordinary man, over four months after a sighting which he admits was only for few seconds, in the dark and with weak street lighting, and who says he would never recognise him again if he saw him, does not claim to be sure it was Gerry McCann based solely on 'the way he was carrying his son'. 

Why - because you say so?

And what he actually said was "He says that it would not possible to recognise the individual in person or from a photograph." You have inserted the word 'never' to try to beef it up. So, another lie, I'm afraid.

An ordinary man, who has told police he is up to 80% sure that Gerry McCann was the abductor, does not then go and work for the McCann Team barely three months later.  

No, what he said was " I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child" 
He did not use the word 'abductor'. You added that in

More lies, I'm afraid

   

@ lemonbutter speaks of 'the integrity of Martin Smith's testimony'. What integrity? His statements and actions are all over the place - see the 'SMITHMAN' threads.

No - that is your opinion and is actually a lie too - his statements are measured, consistent and reinforced by similar testimony from other family members. Oh - and using your own lies as a proof source? Come on now.

@ polyenne is unhappy with the word 'collusion'. OK, let us use another word: 'coilaboration'. I have demonstrated that Martin Smith has a 10-year track record of collaborating with the McCann Team, Operation Grange, and even the BBC. He and his wife have publicly supported the abduction theory and expressed public sympathy for the McCanns.

You have done no such thing. You have not shown any collaboration , a word which suggests that he stands to benefit. Operation Grange did not exist 10 years ago, and as a witness he has co-operated with them as any witness would. He has not supported the abduction theory or expressed public sympathy - unverified quotes from tabloid newspapers are not proof of anything

@ jazega asks if @ aquila has '100-% proof that 'Smithman is bogus'.

I therefore invite any or all of the above to explain, once again, in plain and simple language:        
  
Can you give me one really good, convincing, wholly persuasive argument as to why, barely three months  after declaring that Smithman was Gerry McCann, Martin Smith was working for the McCann Team, talking to their investigation co-ordinator, Brian Kennedy, talking to Metodo 3 who were working for them, talking to Oakley International, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton who were all also employed by the McCanns - and drew up the efits now used by Operation Grange and the BBC to sustain the abduction theory?

He did not declare that the man was Gerry, he gave an estimate to indicate his level of certainty
He was not working for the McCann team, that is a lie. Nor were those groups in the employ of the McCanns. He did not collude, or collaborate. He co-operated in helping to compile an image. That's all. Neither did he have any say over how Operation Grange chose to deploy them. And the BBC just make the programme
So another pack of lies, I'm afraid.