An AG replies.......

The following reply has been received from Portugal. I can't vouch for the translation

“re: The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann


Acting on a higher order, I am writing to acknowledge the request of the document presented by your Excellency on behalf of the research group on the Madeleine McCann case, and to inform that it was now been forwarded to the Honorable Member, the Chief  Magistrate of the Co-ordinator for the Ministry of the Public for the Faro District County”

The CMOMM has claimed:

 On 28 March, the Head of Cabinet for the Attorney-General, Helena Goncalves, replied, stating that the case had been referred to the Chief Magistrate in Faro for further investigation.

Has it? Has it really?

That's strange, because I see no mention of the word "investigation"

I think the word which should probably be there is ''Shredding'', don't you?

Unintended Hilarity

Be gentle with me today; I have laughed so much it actually hurts

Yes - it's Runaround Sue again

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 by Verdi Today at 12:50

The subject has been strategically manoeuvred to avoid the many salient points presented on this forum that cast doubt over the veracity of the Smith family sighting.  As long as that's allowed to continue, there will never be any progress.

As has been pointed out to you many times, you have not produced any evidence at all, merely invited people to draw the same bonkers conclusions as you.

CMoMM prides itself on being a leading investigative/research forum

That is the funniest thing I have ever read, especially as I think she actually believes it 

- an excellent place to hang out but always with the interests of Madeleine McCann at the forefront.  

Cobblers 

The forum's success is reflected in the statistics, both membership and readership,

You have hardly any contributors - the rest are watching in fascinated horror 

the only way to retain it's reputation and integrity is to maintain the professional standard that CMoMM has built over the years.

Well, you have a reputation for being a complete laughing stock; a malodorous pit of looning morons and  shrieking, wild-haired harpies

  Since it's creation, the forum has gone from strength to strength - let's maintain that strong position by working towards a positive result, rather than a negative game of ping-pong.

Translation - we know we are in a state of terminal decline, but we are collectively too stupid to do anything about it. 

This thread is actually entitled..

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

Yes we know. We had to read the fucking thing, and it was utter shit. 

A positive move many will agree.  The replies are not very informative but miracles have not yet been accepted as the norm,  to get a straight response from a government official is akin to the proverbial 'getting blood out of a stone'.  

That will always be the case when you continue to ask totally fucking stupid questions 

This case is a massive establishment cover-up, they are not going to willingly lift the lid off a stinking rotten pile of merde - are they?

Another meaningless and proof-less statement 

Another very positive note is the very recent letter sent to the Portuguese authorities, showing evidence that could lead to a renewed investigation sometime in the future - not by the UK authorities I hasten to add.

It wasn't positive and it is in the bin. 

Boba Fett

Hello, I'm Boba Fett. I used to be a solicitor and I think Tony is just great.

New evidence is what's needed to take this case forward, new evidence has been presented by the MMRG, through the auspices of Paulo Reis and is now in the hands of senior Portuguese authorities.

There was no new evidence and the thing is in the bin 

  Let's keep that positive alive, don't allow the forum to stagnate for the sake of mawkish sentimentality.

You are such a pompous slapper, you really are  

 In the grand scheme of things, it matters not who thinks what - because some ex-senior police official or some criminologist retains a blinkered view of the case, is not important.  The only important person is Madeleine McCann - it is she we work for, not the protection of some irrelevant personage on the periphery.

You do not work for Madeleine. You sit on your fat arse spinning stories and fairy tales 

 I believe I can say without fear of contradiction - members of CMoMM, past and present, know a whole lot more about the detail of this case than any part-time enthusiast, that pops up from time to time.

And I think I can say with absolute certainty that you don't. The only thing which is in rich supply here is bacofoil 

The Many Faces of Verdi

This was an interesting exchange:

 by Verdi Today at 15:32

@Phoebe wrote:@Verdi. You have been asked time and again to provide one scintilla of actual EVIDENCE which would corroborate your claim that the Smiths lied about their sighting and became involved solely to assist in the cover-up of what happened to Madeleine McCann. You have not done so. You accuse those, who do not agree with your view that the Smiths were involved, of proffering nothing but opinions and speculation, while doing just that yourself!

Good points. And the reply? 

I have provided documented information from the PJ files - repeatedly. I have nothing more to offer.

You never had anything to offer 

All this toing and throing isn't leading anywhere, it's just an unnecessary distraction. I've frankly got better things to do with my time.

Or in other words, I am going down quicker than Stormy Daniels in the Oval Office and I need to get out of here pronto 

NB: Can I ask that you use the quote function when repeating what members have previously said, I find it extremely difficult to understand who's saying what and to whom. It's quite simple, if you need any guidance just ask. Thanks!

Just like you do, you mean? Except that you don't, of course, as I pointed out the other day

Run, Verdi. Run for the hills....... 

Stupid is as stupid does

Brace yourselves for this one, guys:

Excerpt from Martin Smith's witness statement - 26th May 2007

— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.

— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. 

And your point is? 

So that description of the stranger Martin Smith and his family allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May 2007, morphs into this ..

Morphs? The image is entirely consistent with the descriptions they gave. Generally speaking a facial efit image does not include things like legs. Or shoes.
The desperation is coming off Verdi in palpable waves. 

Enlarge this image

Spare parts

Verdi swooned as her hero Tony strode into the room, flinging off his mac to reveal his Brexit tank top

Morning all

First, a question - how big a pain in the arse is Verdi, Baldylocks' permanent tagalong?

"Huge" I hear you cry

Let's take a peep at her                                             latest

the Smithman efits (MARCH 2018)

 by Verdi Today at 1:25

@Phoebe #36

1.  You actually said that the PJ were passing the buck, when they decided not the persue the return of Martin Smith to Portugal.  You have also said there was no request/requirement for the Irish police to become involved which clearly contradicts your passing the buck comment.  If the PJ requested the Irish police, by rogatory,  to re-interview Martin Smith and/or any of his family then they were involved weren't they?

No more involved than any other force, tasked with taking a statement 

The police don't get to pick and choose who or what they investigate, inter-police national and international protocol dictates - in short, they have no choice but to cooperate if requested.  If by example, the police at Witney Bay are investigating a crime and needs to interview a witness residing at Wookey Hole, they wouldn't send one of their own officers down to Somerset, they would arrange for a local force to contact and interview the witness - hence my comment about Martin Smith being dealt with locally.

And? We all know this, so why have you got your knickers in a wad? 

2.  There was nothing for the PJ to thoroughly investigate, Martin Smith said he saw television footage of Gerry McCann on his return to the UK, and recognized him with 60-80% certainty purely by the way he was carrying his child - probably the most common way of carrying a child of that age group.  How can you elaborate on that?  Martin Smith and his son and daughter had already returned to Portugal in May 2007 at the expense of the Portuguese, to give their original statements, three weeks after Madeleine's alleged disappearance, how could they possibly justify another visit by Martin Smith to re-affirm such flimsy evidence?  The most sensible/logical/economical mode of operation was to refer the new evidence to Martin Smith's home ground and/or the police in England assigned to coordinate the case from their end - that is precisely what they did do.

So what is your point? And it was hardly 'flimsy' evidence, two individuals who were able to put a tentative identification on the man they saw 

The Irish police have a responsibility to respond to a request for assistance by another national/international force, they do have a role to play - they must cooperate, they're in no position to refuse.

Are you specialising in the bleeding obvious? 

3.  The opinion of an officer of the Irish police as regards the integrity of a witness has no bearing - it is but an off the cuff opinion, not an official declaration.

It is an opinion offered by an officer of the law who knew him and was able to speak with regards to his standing in the local community. I'd like to see you or the Hooded CombOver find one to speak up for you 

4.  If the PJ and/or their counterparts in Ireland thought there was any reason to pursue Martin Smith's revelation moment, they would have done so.  As they didn't I think it can be safely concluded that they didn't think it worthwhile.

As you are clearly not privy to their thought processes, I think it can be safely concluded that you haven't a fucking clue what you are on about 

5.  If the PJ, the Irish police and the English police thought Martin Smith's 60-80% assurance it was Gerry McCann he and his family saw on the night of 3rd May 2007, thought it not worthy of  further attention, there was no requirement for Martin Smith to do anything.  If the police required further detail they would have contacted him as they didn't it becomes clear they had no reason so to do.

Another startling, razor-sharp deduction from the crabby cow in the corner 

Look at it from another angle. Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure the stranger in the night of 3rd May 2007 was Gerry McCann - why the heck would the official police need to draw-up an artist impression or e-fit of a living person identified by the witness, if they took it seriously?

That is not how it works, dumbo.
The witnesses couldn't make a 100% positive ID. Absolutely the correct course of action was to ask them to help to compile a new image. The process itself can help to jog the memory of witnesses

Why not just haul Gerry McCann in for questioning, rather than leaving it a few years before issuing before the world for identification purposes?

Who? Who would you suggest called him in? Because the PJ already tried that and the UK plods had no jurisdiction 

The McCanns private detectives however, were anxious for Martin Smith to collaborate with their bogus investigation and Martin Smith willingly complied. 

Really? Well, I hope you have evidence to support that bold claim, sonny Jim! Have you spoken to the detectives to assess their level of anxiety?

Or Mr Smith, to determine his level of compliance? No, I didn't think so

So now what didn't happen has been cleared up, we now have what did happen.  In brief, Martin Smith was contacted by the McCanns private detectives, as early as January 2008 by way of Metodo3 and later by Oakley International through the auspices of the McCanns wealthy financial backer, the double glazing magnate Brian Kennedy.  Martin Smith worked with the latter to produce two e-fits which were apparently shared with Leicester police, the PJ and more recently Operation Grange - so we are led to believe.

No - he co-operated with them. He did not 'work with them'. 

 The two e-fits were the focal point of the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special, where ex-DCI Andy Redwood promoted them as persons of interest to the investigation.

So?

If you think the Portuguese and Operation Grange are running scared because one of the e-fits is said to resemble Gerry McCann - think again!

What the fuck are you on about?

 If one or both e-fits looked remotely like Gerry McCann, the McCanns private detectives would most assuredly have had nothing to do with the production nor the promotion afterwards.  

Oh give over. Of course one looks like him. Doesn't mean it is him, but empirically it resembles him and to claim otherwise is just being a dick

Remember, the private detectives hired by the McCanns all turned out to be a bunch of criminals - I'm in no doubt this was known thoroughly when they were hired, indeed that would be the very reason they were hired.

Probably not wise to tar them all with the same brush - I'm sure they earn a lot more than you do

As I said previously, has it never occurred to you that Martin Smith and his family's alleged sighting was nothing but another reinforcement of the abduction theory?  

No, why should it?  Has it ever occurred to you that Baldylocks knows a credulous gobshite when he sees one?

Just what the McCanns needed back in May 2007 and just what ex-DCI Andy Redwood needed for the Crimewatch 2013 production!!!

Tin hats at the ready, people!

Cunning eh?  There is nothing clever about this extensive operation, just cunning pure and simple.

Cunning my arse. Why don't you put your cards on the big round table and say what you reckon they were doing, eh?  

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.