Bravo to Richard D. Hall and Richplanet for exposing the truth behind the McCanns' media circus, I hope the videos are spread far and wide. For the first time, we have a professionally produced factual account of what was really going on behind the scenes in the 'search' for Madeleine.
However, for me Part IV was spoilt by the assumption that the Smith family were lying about their sighting of a man carrying a child. It seemed to me that Richard Hall made a huge leap from factual information to speculation, and in doing so he is insinuating that a family of 6 have conspired to lie for 7 years, perverting the course of justice in a major crime. One of the family members was only 12 at the time, yet we are to believe she too lied to the police to protect a casual friend of her father's.
I wonder sometimes if those accusing this family of lying have any idea of what they are accusing them of? This case involves a heinous crime, the death of a 3 year old child. Their 'lies' have misled the police forces of two countries for 7 years and they will likely face prison sentences and will almost certainly end up with criminal records. Yes, including the 12 year old, thanks Dad. Not forgetting of course, how they will be pilloried by the press and public for obstructing the police in missing child investigation.
I'm not buying it. Lets unravel this Smith family and Robert Murat mystery, Those who disbelieve the Smith family, believe that Robert Murat, the first Arguido, is somehow involved in Madeleine's disappearance. I was disappointed to see that Richard Hall has c/p most of the arguments put forward by Tony Bennett on Jill Havern's forum*, without challenge. It seems to me that both men are trying to ram the wrong piece of the jigsaw into place to complete the picture, and in doing so they are building the case for the McCanns' defence!
Lets imagine for one moment, the grieving family and friends in the aftermath of Madeleine's 'disappearance'. As Richard Hall pointed out, the dash to PDL of numerous high powered government figures, legal eagles, and control risk specialists was unprecedented (Part I is superb), every expert in crisis management in fact. Then you have, err, Robert Murat. Where exactly does he fit in amongst this establishment elite?
But lets get back to the grieving family. In those early days they needed a patsy PDQ in order to take suspicion away from themselves. A profile of an abductor is drawn up and would you believe it there's a guy next door who fits it exactly! What are the chances? An anonymous phone call is put through to the PJ accusing Robert Murat of being peculiar and watching child porn, but he's not picked up immediately. Time to up the ante. A quick word from Lori Campbell, Sun Reporter, 'he reminded me of Ian Huntley'. Then we have a covert operation led by British police, where Jane Tanner, friend of the McCanns positively identifies the man she saw as Robert Murat. Just to make sure there is no doubt about it, two more members of the tapas group come forward to say they saw him on the night.
Just to establish the facts, Team McCann and all their little helpers were putting Robert Murat firmly in the frame. Now they are being assisted by Tony Bennett and Richard Hall!
I could give an in depth psychological profile of Robert Murat that would explain why I do not believe he is involved, but I wouldn't put him through it, the Murats have suffered enough. Suffice to say he is basically a nice helpful guy, but like everyone else his eyes lit up at the pound signs. It really doesn't matter if the Smiths knew him, or he knew Gerry, its all moot. How well do you have to know someone to ask them to help you cover up the death of a child?
I'm appalled at the way the Smith family are being treated by those investigating this case. They are the only independent, credible witnesses to what may have happened that night, yet some of the antis are publicly calling them liars. Its hardly surprising that people are so reluctant to come forward as witnesses, in some cases, this one especially, it can be life changing. By putting their names out there, they become vulnerable to all sorts of intrusion into their private lives, particularly now, with so much information being available on the internet. However, in my opinion it is wrong to make assumptions about this family on the very limited information we have. They have behaved impeccably, they have stayed well away from the media circus surrounding the McCanns and they have never sought to cash in on anything. Yes, lets get to the truth, but lets not persecute innocent people!
Before Jayelles et al give themselves wedgies with this one, the McCanns have been lying and cashing in on their daughter's disappearance for 7 years, if they lie to the public they must expect the public to challenge them. The Smith family haven't been making statements to the press or asking for donations. See the difference?
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/portal
http://blip.tv/richplanet/buried-by-mainstream-media-the-true-story-of-madeleine-mccann-part-1-6997432
Cristobell, although I agree with you that Murat and the Smiths don't deserve to be denigrated when we are only speculating about them, and although I dislike a lot of what Tony Bennet says as regards life in general, I do think he has a point with both these issues.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised people get so polarised about the Smith sighting: I can see it from both points of view and I honestly don't know what to think but I might be tempted at present to think that Bennett is right.
As for Murat: Bennett has done such extensive research on him, and for me it's hard to look past the simultaneous mobile telephone silence of he and Gerry. I don't like to tarnish Murat, cos I also think he comes across as a good guy, but it's hard also not to ignore the evidence. Plus, if Murat did have a role in all this it could be very nuanced: He could have unwittingly been involved without realising it; or he could have been blackmailed into cooperating.
Bennett has done zilch research. He takes other people's research without checking. He was wrong about the time Murat booked his flight, was wrong about the contents of Murat's computer was desperately wrong about his stepstop whom he smeared as a paedophile even through proven wrong until legal measures were threatened.
DeleteNone of his allegations about some seedy paedophile connections bear any basis, and there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that 9 people including children were part of his alleged conspiracy.
Harsh, but I agree, simply don't buy the idea there is a paedo in every closet. Tony has the right to reply of course.
DeleteI believe the Smiths, but think they might have been got at to keep them quiet. Just my thoughts, which may not be right.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your considered views Thomas.
ReplyDeleteI think it odd that it is polarising people too, but today I feel quite outraged! These people are being prodded, probed and torn to shreds for doing nothing more than their civil duty in coming forward as witnesses.
As for Murat, the fact the McCanns, their chums and all their high flying little helpers were pointing the finger at him, should set off alarms.
Tony Bennett and Richard Hall have very limited access to the lives of Robert Murat and the Smith family. Unlike the police and all the investigators who have actually met them and spoken to them.
Why then do you think Bennett and Hall are more qualified to judge the credibility of Murat and the Smiths than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ? Or indeed SY, who used the Smith family efits as the focus of last year's Crimewatch?
The truth is we, including Bennett and Hall, have only seen the first round of interviews from the summer of 2007. We don't know what telephone activity has been thrown up in recent years, we were told the records were being carefully examined.
I hate to see guess work and speculation put across as fact. All of the points put forward by Tony Bennett can be challenged, I know, I have challenged them, yet have never received an itemised response to the points I raised.
I actually think the first 3 videos are brilliant, but Part IV is relying on one, and I have to say it, very biased source and I think the anti movement is now edging towards harassing and intimidating witnesses. Ergo, everything the pros have been accusing us of.
I think Hall has destroyed a very important body of work by moving from the facts into the realms of libellous speculation in Part IV. He is publicly accusing Robert Murat and the Smith family of lying. In my opinion, Tony and Richard have gone one conspiracy theory too far! Lets hope it doesn't lead to the entire collection being whooshed.
I can think of many other things that could have been brought into the documentary that were left out. I don't believe the Smith family lied and given the divisiveness of the subject am surprised it was raised and wonder why. Is the Smith sighting likely to be pivotal to the conclusion of the investigation in any way? Otherwise why raise it at all, why confuse people in this debate when they're already grappling with the basics?
ReplyDeleteI do wonder also why the Smith sighting was raised at the end of Mr Hall's saga if not to please the McCanns. Smithman and Eddie are their dogs in the manger.
DeleteThe cell phones ramblings reveal conspiracy addiction.
Well CB I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I don't think the fact the Mccanns and others pointed the finger at Murat neccessarily means he's innocent. I agree though that Bennett maybe disregards the feelings of people like Murat and the Smiths very easily.
ReplyDeleteAs for the entire Smith family lying. Did they ALL identify the person they saw as being Gerry? I thought that was just Smith and his wife, though correct me if I am wrong.
It was very evident to me that Hall has used Bennett as Gospel in his work; I guess I liked that in the sense that I tend to believe a lot of what Bennett writes, even if I don't really like the man. Also I think Bennett's stuff on Kennedy and Murat has not really reached a wide audience even amongst people in the anti-Mccann camp, another reason why I was glad to see Hall promote it. But having said all this, maybe it's misguided of me (and Rich Hall) to follow Bennett's theories so closely.
I suppose the real question is what is the purpose of the documentary, to promote Madeleine's cause or TB's ideals and which is the most important?
ReplyDeleteHi Rosalind
ReplyDeleteI echo your words, regarding Richard D. Hall, exposing the McCanns media circus. I also echo your words regarding the Smiths and Robert Murat. I used to be a member of Jill Havern's forum, but for reasons I won't go into, I cancelled my membership.
However I do look at the forum from time to time and I am appalled at the derogatory remarks Tony Bennett and some of the other members make about Robert Murat.
They obviously haven't done their home work regarding him being made an arguido. If they had they would know that Robert Murat requested the arguido status. The reason he requested the status, was because thanks to the McCanns, Jane Tanner and other members of the Tapas 7, he was continually being hauled in for questions by the PJ and he thought they were trying to frame him for Madeleine's disappearance. Although he had fully cooperated with the PJ, he was always questioned as a witness, which meant he couldn't have a lawyer present when he was questioned.
He requested and was granted the status of arguido and once again he fully cooperated with the PJ. After the PJ had found nothing in his personal property, to link him with Madeleine's disappearance, completed 2 full searches of his mother's home and garden, including using state of the art radar equipment, in the garden and found nothing, the PJ announced that he was no longer a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Robert Murat expected to be released from the arguido status, but was dismayed that he would have to remain an arguido.
In September 2007, when the McCanns were made arguidos Robert Murat once again, expected to be released from the status. Once again he was told that he would have to remain an arguido, until the McCanns were either charged or released from their arguido status.
When the McCanns were made arguidos they were given permission to go home. The PJ fought against this decision but they were overruled by a higher authority. The McCanns passports were returned to them and they were allowed to go home. They didn't have to adhere to the terms of the arguido status and they were given a police escort to the Algarve airport.
When the McCanns arrived at the East Midland airport, a car containing Special Branch officers, was on the apron of the airport. When the McCanns disembarked from the plane, Gerry McCann gave a brief statement, declaring the innocence of his wife and himself, he promised to cooperate with the PJ, then along with his wife and children, they got into the car and were taken home by the Special Branch officers.
Robert Murat, had to remain in Portugal and adhere to the terms of the arguido status.
I've seen comments on Jill Havern's forum where posters have said Robert Murat must be guilty, because he would have sued Jane Tanner and the others, who tried to frame him. These comments are also made on other forums and they are made by posters, who haven't followed the case, they have just read what is printed in the tacky tabloids.
Here are a couple of links, that show Robert Murat did attempt to sue Jane Tanner and the others. I don't know what the out come of the lawsuits were.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/mccann-case-expat-is-to-sue-tapas-bar.html
Below is a link that shows the special treatment the McCanns were given, after they were made arguidos and allowed to return home.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mccannfiles.com/id109.html
The link doesn't mention the police escort the McCanns were given to the Algarve airport. Nor does it mention that the Special Branch car was waiting for the McCanns on the apron of the East Midland airport. However I'm sure I'll be able to find the information on the internet.
If the link regarding the special treatment the McCanns were given doesn't open, the special treatment the McCanns were given, was a VIP room at Faro Airport. When they boarded the flight home, two front rows had been cleared, on their aircraft, for them and their party.
ReplyDeleteThis was on top of the police escort to the Faro Airport and the Special Branch escort to their Rothley home, which was 16 miles away from the East Midland Airport.
I'd love to know why the McCanns who were the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance were given this special treatment. They'd hindered the case at every opportunity, from day one, with their lies, their trampling of the crime scene, with the assistance of their mates and, Kate McCann's refusal to answer 48 questions.
She still refused to answer the 48 questions, after she was told that by refusing to answer them, she was hampering the investigation into her daughter's disappearance.
While I don't agree with Richard D. Hall's references against Robert Murat, I think he did a good job of producing these videos. The more people who learn just what kind of people the McCanns are, the better.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteResponding to your comments about the Smiths sighting. I am not claiming the Smith's fabricated the sighting, just questioning why they took so long to report it and that the timing of the reporting coincided with the police interest in Murat. Also the possibility that Malcolm Smith knew Murat. I fully take the points made that it seems unlikely for a whole family to fabricate such a claim in light of the seriousness of this claim. Like everyone other than the Smith's themselves we don't really know 100% what they witnessed. I would be willing to interview Mr Smith either by telephone or a televised interview and add this interview to my film if it is something he wishes to do.
Regarding Murat's possible involvement. I have read all the comments. I accept that it is possible that there was an attempt to frame him and he might have had zero involvement. There is an interesting police recorded phone call transcript of Robert Murat where he is questioning a police officer as to how much the Portuguese police can ascertain from his mobile phone pings to mobile phone masts. In that transcript Murat seems very worried that the police might be able to find his whereabouts on particular days. Again this might not necessarily mean he was involved.
Much of what is in the films is available online somewhere or other, but it would take months for somebody to discover all the points I have included in the films. Many of these points have been ignored by mainstream media. Hopefully if the film gets viewed widely enough online it might have the effect of bringing about a proper investigation and trial.
If you read the transcript of Murat's phonecall with the police officer you will notice his desperation to find a way to prove that he was NOT at the apartment at the time nobody apart from Jane, Russell, Fiona and Rachel allegedly saw him. But imo there was no need for it since nobody else saw him there, not the police officers who knew him, not the owner of a Bar who helped all night with the searches who knew him. And his computer data (that are in the files as well) show clearly that he was at his computer at the time the tapasniks claimed he had been at the apartment INTRODUCING himself.
DeleteIt was very obviously a case of aggressive framing. He was the perfect patsy especially since he had translated the statements of Dianne Webster and the nannies, where in both cases statements might have to be challenged in a future court case. They would have been worthless with an arguido as translator...
Cristobell. I agree with the majority you say on the Jill Haven Forum. I used to be a regular poster on it myself until I started to disagree with various nonsense that Tony Bennett would purport. Of course as soon as you stand up to TB on that forum, you end up getting banned (the forum which originated to help TB by the way). So be wary as it would be such a shame if you got yourself banned as I and many others enjoy your posts.
ReplyDeleteJustice for Madeleine and a big thanks to Richard D Hall.
You would have been banned from JH forum for breaking the rules, not for disagreeing with another poster. If you don't like that forum you can follow Cristobell's posts here on her blog.
DeleteThank you, Richard Hall for your work.
Tony Bennett banned WLBTS from the Jill Havern Forum because he outed Bennett as Fleffer .Bennett had met his match ,intellectually and morally.It is a question of integrity ,Bennett has none.
DeleteBennett lied about the content of a pm sent to WLBTS in order to ban him.Hopefully he will be found out in the end.
As for his cronies particularly the pathetic Sharonl;The Emporar has new clothes.
p.s.I have never met WLBTS
Oh dear, now you have been banned (again) from JH this has become the place for you to rant about TB. Poor Cristobell - she's attracting all the waifs and strays on her blog.
DeleteThe Emperor,s New Clothes
DeleteCristobel seems to be attracting quite a lot of waifs and strays as you call them.
DeleteSome of these strays can bite it seems.
@ Richard D. Hall
ReplyDeleteThe Smiths' going to the police on 26th May 2007 did NOT coincide with the police's interest in Murat. At this time Murat had already been Arguido for 11 days, since 15th May 2007 (and of course was subsequently completely cleared of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance).
The Smith family statement (on 26th May 2007) came just one day after the Portuguese police made public (on 25th May 2007) Jane Tanner's sighting of a man carrying a child at 9.15pm close to the McCanns' holiday apartment on the evening Madeleine went missing:
25th May 2007: "Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child.The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes."
it seems more likely that it was this press release that prompted Martin Smith and his family to go to the police with the report of their own, later sighting at about 10pm, of a man carrying a child towards the beach.
Smith's subsequent statement to Drogheda police was made on 20th September 2007, a full month before the artist's impression of "Tannerman" was released to the public by the McCann family on 25th October 2007.
Dr Amaral has stated that he was in the process of recalling Smith to Portugual for further questioning regarding the 20th September statement, when he was suddenly removed from the case on 2nd October 2007.
Martin Smith called the PJ on the phone in the days that followed his return to Ireland. Meanwhile his son Peter alerted him about crossing a man carrying a child and the issue had been talked among the whole family. The PO who attended the phone but left no note in the PJ Files, told MS to go to the Gardai and so he did. The Gardai alerted the LC and the LC alerted the PJ. Meanwhile Robert Murat had been made an arguido but there was absolutely no evidence against him. Gonçalo Amaral thought that the Smiths perhaps would bring that missing evidence and asked the Smiths to come back. The formalities to book flights took days. It isn't plausible to imagine that the release of Tannerman sighting could have prompted Martin Smith. The fact that only at the end of his statement he says that Smithman wasn't Robert M shows he was asked this question.
DeleteAnneGuedes
Cristobell sorry for replying to Richard on your blog but dont know where else too. Just a big thank you Richard i know there may be some differences of opinions on the content but for people like me who havent studied the files they were a fabulous peice of work. God bless you and everyone else who care enough to research and discuss the issues around them. Im sure somewhere in that little girls immediate family there is someone who is secretly supportimg you all in your quest for the truth
ReplyDeleteJohanna's account of Murat's 'framing' conveniently ignores another witness who said originally she saw Murat there that night.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason for that of course - the witness is an embarrassment. She changed her mind about seeing him and also vastly altered her second statement to the PJ from what she originally claimed.
Out went genuinely distressed parents, replaced by the 'praying arabs' nonsense. Inserted after they had come under suspicion. Her two statements are a textbook example of what happens when witnesses retrofit their experience to fit a current accepted narrative.
You dont need me to give her name. You know who she is and you know what she did. So please don't talk to me about 'framing'.