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.  

Making it up

Tony had to admit that Jill had some great ideas

Afternoon all.

Today I thought I'd take a look at the steaming pile of ordure that is Bonkers Bennett's letter to the Portuguese AG.

In order to do so I am going to delete about 95% of it and restrict it to the basic claims, because there is literally nothing to be achieved by going into the detail, other than giving my carpel tunnels a thorough workout

So here we go

(For those of you unfamiliar with how I work, my comments are in red)

From: The Madeleine McCann Research Group

No such thing 

(Address redacted) 

But it’s somewhere in Shropshire                                                                                                        

28 February 2018      

To: 

Exma Sra. Procuradora-Geral da República,

Drª Joana Marques Vidal

Dear Drª Joana Marques Vidal

re: The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: New evidence of what happened to her

BIG LIE ALERT – there is no new evidence 

We are a group of mainly British researchers. Most of us have studied the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in depth for the past 10 years.

You are not researchers. You are not investigators. You are members of a web forum that thinks it’s the FBI 

Our members and researchers include many people with professional expertise, such as ex-police officers, lawyers, photographers, computer experts and statement analysts.

You have a former police officer, a former trainee solicitor who was struck off, you wouldn’t know a computer expert if they sauntered up and kicked you in the nuts and ‘statement analysis’ is entirely unproven

(Tavares de Almeida’s report  was here - deleted all this bit. No idea why he has bothered telling them what their own people wrote) 

The research that we have undertaken – and that of many others both here, in Portugal, and elsewhere – leads us to support all of the above conclusions in Tavares de Almeida’s report – except for one.

For ‘’research’’ read arguing the toss on the CMOMM and banning anyone who disagreed 

We noted that when the report of the Policia Judiciara was archived in July 2007, it was said that the case would be re-opened if ‘new and credible evidence’ was received by the Portuguese authorities.  The case was re-opened in the PJ’s Oporto office in 2013. Our letter contains evidence which we believe they should see and act on. 

No it doesn’t. Seriously, it doesn’t. No evidence has been presented at all, just a load of fuckwittery where the conclusions should be

As a result of painstaking research by many people, we believe that we are now in a position to supply you with new and credible evidence on one matter (the date of death) covered in the first point of Tavares de Almeida’s report, namely: “Conclusion  A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007”.

Yeah, you said that already and it was bollocks. Saying it again just makes it repetitive bollocks

We are satisfied that we can now provide sufficient evidence to show that the minor Madeleine McCann died not on the night of Thursday 3rd May, but instead died between Sunday afternoon (29th April) and Monday afternoon (30th April).

You can’t.

The remainder of this letter sets out in brief summary the evidence which we suggest points clearly to Madeleine having died on the Sunday or Monday that week.

You wouldn’t know a ‘’brief summary’’ if it shat on your cornflakes 

We will present the evidence under these seven headings: 

There now follows a list of eight headings, so the dozy wankpuffin can’t count either.

Anyway, I am going to comment on the headings and delete the rest

A  A large number of false statements were made at the outset, containing a huge amount of fabricated evidence. These added credibility to the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine had been abducted on Thursday 3 May. They diverted the PJ investigation into believing that Madeleine was still alive that day.

This is not evidence, it is opinion. What’s more it is the opinion of people who have clearly stopped taking their tablets. Bennett has not produced any evidence to support these sweeping claims

B  The photograph of Madeleine McCann, Dr Gerry McCann and Amelie, taken by the Ocean Club pool.

There is nowt wrong with the photo. Bennett uses weather data taken from a weather station 50 miles away as the basis for his bonkers claims. Bullshit about Flickr is just that - bullshit

C  The absence of photographs of Madeleine taken after Sunday. (7)

Utter bullshit. There are oodles of photos of her taken after Sunday, including photos taken by other people with Madeleine in the background. In fact, that alone blows all the rest of this bullshit document out of the water

D  The fabricated statement of Nuno Lourenco, who tried to identify Wojchiech Krokowski as a potential child-kidnapper who had tried to abduct his daughter on Sagres beach. (3) (8) (9) (10) (11)

More opinion portrayed as evidence. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate this was fabricated

E  The unreliable evidence of the children’s nanny (and McCann family friend), Catriona Baker, Dr Gerry McCann and Dr Kate McCann about an alleged ‘high tea’ at the Ocean Club Tapas restaurant, at about 5pm to 6pm on Thursday 3 May. (12)

More opinion, totally contradicted by the evidence contained within numerous eyewitness testimonies

F The lack of any credible, independent evidence by anybody that Madeleine McCann was seen alive after Sunday 29th April.  (7) (13)

Total cobblers. Really not worthy of anything more than that. There is ample evidence – eyewitnesses, documented records and photographic evidence

G  The mystery of the strange ‘Make-Up Photo’ of Madeleine, which appears to have been taken on Sunday 29th April, (5) (14) (15) and

There is no mystery and there is no indication it was taken on that date

H  Clear photographic evidence that the very same pyjamas Madeleine had with her on holiday in Praia da Luz were later held up by the McCanns at two press conferences, one in London on 5th June 2007, the other in Amsterdam, Holland, on 7th June 2007. (16) (17)

There is no such evidence. It was clearly stated that they were her sister’s pyjamas and that Madeleine’s were very similar and a little larger

Okay – so those are your eight headings. And all he has presented so far is a plate of double wank with shit chips.

I have deleted all the crap which followed which is basically a summary of ten years of Baldylocks posts. I could go through each individual point and debunk it but I’ve done that many times before so that can be found elsewhere

The facts point to death on Sunday, or Monday at the latest.

No they don’t. You have not presented any facts, just hypotheses.

This, we suggest, opens up a vital new line of enquiry.

It doesn’t 

This, we suggest, must be the starting-point for a fresh Portuguese police investigation.

And they will probably suggest you fuck off

We add many references below and would be willing to assist the Portuguese judicial and police authorities in any further way that we can.   

Yeah – just a suggestion, guys. Don’t quote tabloid reports and fuckwits like Textusa as your sources. It just makes you look like even bigger dicks

Yours sincerely

(Redacted)

But clearly Baldylocks 

For the Madeleine McCann Research Group

No such thing

Footnote 

Just a little addition for you

The letter included what was presumably intended to be an impressive list of references.

However, the devil is in the detail

Source	Total
Petermac book	3
Blogs	5
Richard Hall films	4
PJ files	6
CMOMM	20
Textusa	1
HiDeHo	1
Amaral’s book Newspapers Crimewatch Article by Bennett Clarence Mitchell interview Total	1 3 1 1 1 47

Most of it is simply posts from CMOMM, written by numbnuts

Gobshites

Afternoon all.

I have just read the ''media release'' in which an assortment of people with evident mental health issues announce to the world that they have solved the Madeleine case.


Of course, all it consists of is the same bonkers conspiralunacy that Baldylocks has been peddling to the deranged for years.


So here is my plea to Tony Bennett, Jill Havern, former Chief Superintendent of Bins, Petermac and all the other gobshites who contributed to this steaming pile of horseshit:

If you really want to help, then fuck off. When you get to wherever you fuck off to, fuck off some more. Keep fucking off until you get the the Land of the Midnight Fuck, or wherever your final resting place is.

You are the worst thing to happen to this investigation ever. Ever. You give a bad name to anyone who is unconvinced by the McCann narrative and those of us in possession of functioning brains would like nothing more than to completely disassociate ourselves from anything you say, claim or invent

I will leave you with a piece of advice: if you really want to be taken seriously, do not list amongst your references a post by certified lunatic Textusa. The woman is more toxic than a Russian's trousers

Now fuck off

Kindest regards, etc

Not Textusa 

PS. Your theory is so bonkers that even Textusa has dissociated herself from it. You've hit rock bottom, man. Rock bottom  

Urgent letter For Tony

Attorney General
Lisbon
Portugal

Mr Antony Baldylocks Bennett

Some godforsaken place in Shropshire

England

Dear Baldylocks,

What really happened to Madeleine McCann 

The Attorney General has received your letter explaining in exhaustive and indeed exhausting detail what happened to the missing girl.

He has asked me to convey his thanks for finding time to write to him, especially as you must be very busy looking forward to being able to buy your vegetables by the pound again when you leave the EU. 

Your theory has proved to be very popular here; so much so that we are each chipping in 5 euros a go to be afforded the pleasure of taking your letter home for the night, so that we can piss ourselves laughing in the comfort of our own homes. 

We have spoken at length to our British counterparts, who greeted the news of your findings with a rousing "Oh for fuck's sake, not that bloody loon again - what does the speccy twat want this time?" So as you can see, you are certainly making an impact!

We would like to show our appreciation for your 'help' by awarding you a free 'Spa Holiday' to be taken as soon as possible at the Hospital de Lisboa pelo criminoso insano, a charming resort with all mod cons. You won't even need to bring clothing, as this will be provided free of charge, although you will need to surrender your shoelaces as a deposit.

Hope to see you soon,

Attorney General

 

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.

____________________