Tuesday, 12 August 2014

RICHARD D. HALL response Smithman controversy

Hi Richard, thank you for taking the time to respond.

First, let me start by saying that I think you did a phenomenal job, the videos were so compelling, I watched them until the wee small hours.  You have got so many facts out there that the Mainstream media have failed to report.  I think they are essential viewing for anyone trying to understand the complexities of this case.  There are so many aspects to it, I can only imagine what you had to wade through to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I think you have done a terrific job, but if I may be so bold as to say, it needs a few tweaks to make it great.  The title of Goncalo Amaral's book for example is 'The Truth of the Lie', and it is Martin Smith not Malcolm. Minor points in the whole scheme of things, but irksome to the thousands who follow this case.

I think you have vastly underestimated the importance of the Smith family sighting.  It is an integral part of the abduction story.  It was so important that when Goncalo Amaral  was arranging for the Smith family to return to PDL, he was removed from the case.  The Smith family evidence has always been there, but it was tucked away whilst the fake leads were promoted.  Why was it so important for the McCanns to suppress this vital evidence from the Smith family?  The efits presented in last October's Crimewatch have been in existence since 2008, yet they have only now come to the public's attention.  They have been advertising Jane Tanner's sighting for 7 years and still do, even though SY have dismissed him as a suspect!

The Smith family have done no more than come forward to say what they saw, their civil duty in fact, and given the huge security wall that surrounded the McCanns, I think it was very brave of them.  In trying to understand the reasons for another person's actions, why leap to the assumption it is because they are involved in a major crime?  There could be all sorts of reasons why there was a delay in their sighting coming to light, waiting for 'pal' Robert Murat to be picked up as suspect being the least likely.

If we try to imagine the chaos that ensued after the McCanns and the Tapas gang hit the phones on the night of 3rd May, we might be able to understand why there was a delay.  The PJ were inundated with calls and leads in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance - as Uncle John told us, the McCanns are a very proactive family.  Within hours of Madeleine's disappearance the world's media were descending upon PDL.  Not only the world's media, but all the powerful people listed in Part 1 of your documentary.

How much evidence did the PJ have to sift through?  Additionally, they had to interview the parents, the tapas gang, and everyone in the immediate vicinity when the incident occurred.  Martin Smith's report may have lain among mountains of papers and may have seemed unimportant at the time.  The police are only human and as we know, TM were doing everything they could to saturate the investigation with all sorts of nonsense including messages from psychics and mediums!

We can see from the Smiths' statements that they did not fully understand the importance of their sighting. They were in a holiday resort and the sight of a man carrying a sleeping child, did not seem out of the ordinary. They themselves had children with them.  From their perspective there could have been dozens of men walking around PDL carrying sleeping children - there was a night crèche.
If the Smiths didn't think their sighting important, and neither did the police, we can see how it sunk further to the bottom of the pile.  Again, we have no idea how many hundreds of sightings and leads the PJ were chasing up at that time and nor did the Smiths. Martin Smith, a modest man, may have felt there were other sightings more important than theirs, particularly if they did contact the police and the call wasn't followed up. 
Goncalo Amaral was trying to run an investigation alongside a sensational media campaign, the like of which we have never seen before, where the McCanns were encouraging every loon on the planet who saw a 3 year old blonde girl (in the flesh or in dreams) to telephone the PJ.  In addition they were being pressurised to lay off the parents and focus on Tannerman.  That the Smith family sighting ever came to light is a miracle in itself. 

As for Robert Murat, he may have been a bit of a player, or that was the way he saw himself.  He was a salesman with an outgoing personality, he had no ego or confidence problems as demonstrated by his active participation in the circus that was building up around Warners.  How CEOP managed to squeeze him into the profile of a child murderer is bizarre,  We also know he had a geeky interest in mobile phone pings and spent over an hour having a friendly chat to a police officer with similar interests.  Again, it is a huge leap to assume he is involved in a major crime based on his interest in gadgets.

I hope that my criticism is taken in the spirit in which it is mean't Richard.  I think your work has the potential to knock the socks off this establishment cover up, and hopefully we can keep it circulating online. As I said before, I was hugely impressed with your work, and I applaud your bravery in stepping up to the plate and exposing this sham for what it is.

Kindest wishes to you.

Ps.  So sorry I have been unable to copy Richard's reply into my above post, but it is among the comments.

Pps.  Herewith a link to the Smith family statements.  One of the witnesses was only 12, are we to believe she too lied to the police?  I urge readers to scroll down to the bottom of the witness statements, the reports at the bottom explain exactly why the McCanns did not want their evidence made public.


Join the discussion at http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/portal


  1. Cristobell you are straying far from reality sheer speculation as to how you view what the Smith's thought. How the PJ dealt with the Smith sighting. What Goncalo Amaral did or did not do. All that you have said, is not fact it is but your opinion at best.

    From paragraph beginning:-

    ' If we try to remember'.

    until, paragraph beginning

    'Goncalo Amaral was trying'

    It is your opinion Cristobell, not fact. As you said 'try to imagine'

    This piece is your imaginings. Nothing more.

    Just please, don't dress up what you don't know, your imaginings to be fact or by way of excuse for matters which you cannot possibly know for sure.

    To say:

    If the Smiths didn't think their sighting to be important and the police didn't either you can see how it sunk further to the bottom of the pile.

    You don't know that anything sunk to the bottom of any pile. And you don't know that the Smith family thought that as their sighting wasn't followed up that their were others more important.

    Incidentally, I believe the Smith's to be genuine witnesses, honest in their account, and it is for that reason, that I do not like to see you or anyone else for that matter, writing as you have done - nothing more than pure speculation as to what this family were thinking, how they acted. It really doesn't help.

    I respectfully suggest you keep it real, keep to the facts.

    Best you should be very much more careful what you write in this respect. You are suggesting, yes suggesting scenarios to Richard Hall, with nothing to back up your imaginings!


  2. In order to understand the world around us 'Rich!' we have to be able to imagine the thought processes behind other peoples' actions. Its integral to our peaceful existence.

    For several yeas now several members of JH have been imagining all sorts of scenarios where this nice family of 4 adults and 5 kids, strolling home from a nice evening out, are somehow involved in this mother of all crimes.

    There has been all sorts of speculation as to why the Smith family did not contact the police straight away, including the 'fact' that they did not come forward until their 'friend' Robert Murat was arrested. Imaginations have in fact run pretty wild, and square pegs are being forced into round holes. For me, the moment someone starts to alter the facts to fit their own theory, they lose credibility.

    If people are going to speculate and imagine scenarios as to why the Smiths didn't come forward, then why can't others speculate on reasons for the delay?

    What a terrible reflection on society that people are prepared to believe the very worst about these witnesses on the flimsiest of evidence, and are so dismissive of more likely explanations.

    1. Cristobell,

      You condemn those who do not believe in the Smith sighting. By doing so you are not affording them the very right which you are claiming for yourself - To imagine. To speculate.

      I am not concerning myself with 'several members of JH' whatever 'JH' is. I replied in response to your comments. Not those of others.

      I replied in response to YOUR imaginings. Not those of others.

      That you need to bring JH into your reply - Poor argument!

      To say that if others apply imagination, why can't you? Poor argument!

      How quickly you pass the buck, blame others for your actions!

      Why is it a poor reflection on society that people are prepared to believe as you put it the 'very worst' of these witnesses? Perhaps they feel, that the evidence (and you do say there is evidence, though you consider it to be flimsy, but you are not denying it exists) is strong enough, not as flimsy as you suggest, for them to reach their conclusions.

      You say they are dismissive of 'more likely explanations.'

      But, again Cristobell - 'more likely' in your estimation, in your imaginings.

      To others your explanations - may be less likely.

      Richard Hall can no more, put over your thoughts on the Smith sighting as being 'more likely to be the truth or close to' than he can those of others who are not in agreement with you.

      Stating the facts of the Smith sighting the best way forward for Richard Hall or anyone else,who chooses to write about the Smith family, and others will decide for themselves what they believe based on facts. Not based on you stating if they don't agree with you,that their opinion is a 'terrible reflection of society'

      I believe the Smith family to have been honest in their statements. But I appreciate why others might not.

      There is no right and wrong on this. You do not know Cristobell and neither do I, if the Smith's are honest witnesses.

      You do them a disservice with your imaginings. Doesn't matter that you believe in their statement, it is all of the trimmings you have added which is the problem - 'they may have thought this, or they may have thought that.'

      One thing to discuss your opinion with others, quite another to write a blog on the Smiths that is not factual.
      As I said earlier - do please keep it real, keep to the facts.

      "and to understand the world around us, we have to be able to imagine the thought processes behind other people's actions. Its integral to our peaceful existence"


      Good day!

  3. GA wrote in HIS book he was arranging for the Smith family to be brought to PDL. That isnot imagining that is fact. - PK

    1. It may be fact that he wrote it. That doesn't mean it's fact that he really did it.

  4. Rich why did you leave the star witness alone? Removing tanner, the mcscammers have nothing and puts Gerry right where the smiths saw him carrying maddie. Jez Wilkins did not see her, he saw Gerry at just after nine not quarter too ten as Gerry says. So why attack the Smith's statement? Not tanners - PK

    1. You misread. I did not attack the Smith family. I believe them to be genuine witnesses!

      Do read more carefully in future. It is wrong to speak of the Smith family by saying as Cristobell said ''let's imagine they thought this or that this or that may have happened.'

      Why not let's just speak of the facts, do not add trimmings. A disservice to the Smith family in doing so whether in support of them or otherwise.

      Do state what the family said in their witness statements, the facts, not what you imagine they might have said or done.

      I think that is much more fair don't you?

  5. Well said, Cristobell, I think it takes great courage to stand up for what you believe and you have done it eloquently and honestly.

    Well done Richard Hall, you are doing an amazing job and please keep up the good work.

    Anonymous 4.38, do you have any knowledge on the Smiths that you could provide?

    I'm sure Goncalo Amaral had some interesting thoughts and who knows what he privately wondered about and what he really knows. He had a duty to himself, his family and above all Madeleine and I believe that he told a simple story for a reason. It would be no use to anyone if he was dismissed as a Conspiracy Theorist. Now is the time to keep the facts simple and spread the message and not divide and conquer.

    1. The knowledge of the Smith's I have is what is contained in their witness statements. I would never presume to add to, to speculate, add trimmings as to what they may or may not have felt, thought, or how they acted in the circumstances as Cristobell has done.

      If I had any knowledge of this family other than the above which is in the public domain in the form of their statements, I can assure you I would not discuss on a blog.

      It would be wrong and insensitive of me or anyone else to do so.

      Whether you believe them to be honest or not, anyone with a shred of decency would leave this family alone.

      It is wrong of Cristobell to suggest that they may have said this or that.

      Discuss if you must what they DID say, not what you imagine they might have.

    2. What the Smiths said in their statements has the been the subject of debate for a number of years, the majority, or should I say, the more forceful voices, speculating that the reasons for the delay in the Smiths reporting their sighting, were of a sinister nature.

      I, and indeed many others, have been calling for the Smith family to be left alone for a number of years only to be faced again and again with the argument that they took 12 days to report their sighting and therefore must be involved. If you look on the Jill Havern forum you will find numerous threads and hundreds of 'facts' and 'reasons' that 'prove' this family are lying and their sighting is fabricated.

      As witnesses in a major crime, they cannot defend themselves. They are gagged as it were, by their own moral sense of decency and refusal to be dragged into the publicity surrounding this case. All of which is to their credit.

      I happen to find the investigation of this family by a forum morally wrong, and have used every argument I can think of to persuade these people to stop what they are doing. Do you know what exasperated feels like?

      And by the way, the idea that the Smith family are involved in a conspiracy is founded on speculative reasons for their delay (if indeed there was one) in reporting their sighting to the police. I am merely imagining an innocent scenario to equal the playing field.

    3. Cristobell

      I replied earlier to your response I don't see it. I may have erred when submitting.


      By your own argument - then leave them alone!

      If the Smith's have not defended themselves, if their sense of moral decency prevents them from doing so, that is their choice. It is not for you to take it upon yourself to speak for them. You have choices too, and if you are exasperated, that is a result of your own actions. No one is twisting your arm up your back I take it?

      Both parties, those who believe, and those who do not, the Smith family, those who bicker over this, by continually dragging this up, each as bad as the other. Neither has the moral high ground.

      If this has been how you have conducted yourself in this matter for all of these years, time to stop, leave these people alone.

      To say you are 'merely imagining an innocent scenario to equal the playing field' should tell you, to call this a day.

    4. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

      Edmund Burke.

  6. Cristobell, I respect you for taking all the abuse you have to, and for bringing some air of liberalism to Jill's forum but isn't one of the most important parts of the Smith sighting this:

    During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me [that the man was Gerry] was my wife. So it seems to me that amongst the many interpretations of the Smith sighting, you could have a scenario where 2 adults have lied but no children have. Indeed the 12 year old witness doesn't seem to recognise the man as being Gerry Mccann. So who is to say she wasn't very much in dispute with her father over this?

  7. Martin Smith stated that it is not possible for him to recognise the man in person or by photograph, but the Smiths do agree as for the man’s carrying style. The man was carrying a child that was lying against his left shoulder, in a vertical position.

    Martin Smith stated that he saw Gerard McCann going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news. It was the way Gerry McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the man did on 3rd May 2007 and also the way he was carrying the child.

    Why faces (e-fits) of Smithman and not focus on Smithman’s carrying style?
    Why a faceless Tannerman and for more than six years the focus on Tannerman’s carrying style?

    I think because Tannerman is Stephen Carpenter and Smithman is Gerry McCann. I will change my mind if Tannerman , “the innocent British father”, comes forward and dismisses Stephen Carpenter and Smithman’s faces (e-fits) are replaced by Smithsman’s carrying style (as witnessed by the Smiths), which is similar to Gerry McCanns carrying style on 9th September 2007.

    But that isn't going to happen, is it.

  8. Look at GMC getting down the stairs with his son against his shoulder. Nobody would think that this way of carrying isn't normal.
    He states that [the man] carried the child on his arms, with the head resting on the left shoulder, as such on the right of the deponent, appearing to him in a natural manner.
    The attention is on the child : how can he so deeply asleep with all the noise around.
    he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.
    Who wasn't comfortable ? The child or the carrier ? Or both ? And why ?

    1. I have three children under five. I have not had much time to follow this case, but I did see the bit about the way Gerry carried Sean getting off the plane. That's the way pretty much everyone I know would carry a child of that age and there's nothing unusual about it.

  9. ' ...... the McCanns were encouraging every loon on the planet who saw a 3 year old blonde girl (in the flesh or in dreams) to telephone the PJ .......' which really makes it even stranger that they did not publicise the E-fits. Why would anyone be interested in a sighting from 3,000 miles away but not one from several hundred yards?

    I've been away for a week, what on earth has been going on?