The wrong Smith............

Proberly annoyed at what's happened, maybe needs away to shout about it, imo.

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:Any chance of a yes or no answer please.

Was this Flamingboy Tony Bennett.... ???

Andrew, if I knew who you were would you want me to divulge it here if someone asked bluntly like you have?  Now, whether I know who someone is or isn't is the job of admin, and not for broadcasting on a forum.  Surely you understand this.

Nope - don't understand at all.

So it appears this Flamingboy was TB which was known all along and accepted (until half hour or so ago).

After all the crap that man has caused as well.

Sorry don't get it one bit.

Andrew wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:Any chance of a yes or no answer please.

Was this Flamingboy Tony Bennett.... ???

Andrew, if I knew who you were would you want me to divulge it here if someone asked bluntly like you have?  Now, whether I know who someone is or isn't is the job of admin, and not for broadcasting on a forum.  Surely you understand this.

Nope - don't understand at all.

So it appears this Flamingboy was TB which was known all along and accepted (until half hour or so ago).

After all the crap that man has caused as well.

Sorry don't get it one bit.

You are putting words into my mouth Andrew, nothing was known all along!

It was not known with certainty - and still isn't - who flamingboy was.

Flamingboy's rather pathetic attempt to disrupt this thread goes to underline the credibility of Tigger's original post.

Looks like you've rattled someone's cage Tigger

Let's look at the evidence:

1. Pathetic attempts to appear to be male and sexist, that to this particular male aren't entirely convincing and sound very forced; user-name includes the word 'boy' to underline that this person is clearly male

2. Holds grudge about this forum being set up and talks about it

3. Particular grudges are all directed at females, especially 'christobell'

CF was bang on when she said 'your forum' in my opinion

But it doesn't matter anyway, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Candyfloss and Freedom,you are not normally so gun shy.
Give Bennett both barrells I say and ban him.

I stress that we don't know who flamingboy was but he or she has been banned for disruption.

Poe wrote:Flamingboy's rather pathetic attempt to disrupt this thread goes to underline the credibility of Tigger's original post.

Looks like you've rattled someone's cage Tigger

It's interesting. Think of TM and KH1 - same tactics: demonise  this forum.  Demonise a few chosen people (CF, Freedom, RD, Cristobell, me) throw out hints that we cheated, plotted etc. and aim for the total destruction of JH. That we all hate JH and all this is done to score points out of spite for getting banned. 

You see how easy it is to get miles away from the real problem - which was a short article with facts that cannot be changed, so these are not attacked.  Shooting the messenger is where it's at 

Afaik  nobody here wants JH to go down and absolutely none of us here are disrupting JH, plenty to do here.

Andrew wrote:CF - When you wrote this:

Now let's get back to subject in hand re Mr Smith and have an answer shall we?  Here or on your forum don't mind which.

Were you implying that Flamingboy was TB may I ask.....?

Who knows, Andrew, but whatever the affiliation (or not), the sudden arrival of such an obvious disrupter on Tigger's terribly important 'finding' is a distraction not needed.

We were long lead to believe by HWMBO that Smithman was a 'lie' perpetrated by, what most of us still continued to believe was, an innocent family, who acted responsibly and called the police when they had had the time to discuss something that they had seen.

The fact that there are identikit faces can be down to the fact that people do not necessarily have to recall details as in a photographic memory, but in an overall impression, which can be agreed as a very close approximation.

The fact that the faces were different could well be that the two people saw the man from different directions and heights from the ground, having already crossed the road or on coming up from steps below.

The fact that they took a while to call the police could be very similar to the Gaspars.

People who are sincere are often a little reticent about rushing to the police and may even feel that they shouldn't really be contacting or taking up important police time, because they would not want to get possibly entirely innocent people named or involved, in what could be very serious allegations or implications, if their memory or impressions were wrong.

Any reticence could even be interpreted as a sign of how 'decent' this family is.

But TB was determined to be right and tried to make the jigsaw piece fit by bending the info to hand.

To make the 'fit' fit, he has claimed that Andy Redwood is telling untruths re Tannerman, the whole investigation is a whitewash, is making sexist remarks about the new police woman in charge because she is a police WOMAN, has claimed that some FOI info sent to him has been a falsehood and of course, in another series of bold blue bullying sessions has dismissed all evidence of photo-shopping, even the 'screamingly obvious' and impossibly un-overlookable reflections in Gerry's sunglasses, in the last photo.

As for alter-sockos, once someone has been discovered to be garnering 'apparent' support for his questioned and challenged claims of 'facts', then all credibility comes into question.

We have been side-swiped for a long time now (by a person who moved into a position of admin and control of posts) from addressing the real implications of this case and these are serious.

If the photos have been photo-shopped, if the Smiths did see someone who looked like Gerry, then it puts a different weight on whether or not there was pre-meditation, either per se as a planned hoax, or in the event of Madeleine having had a fatal accident earlier in the week than the evening of 3rd May 2007.

In the guise of an almost bigoted religious belief in his own 'right-ness' and its subsequent inflexibility to discuss and accept that others may have different and equally valid views, many have been humiliated and relegated to the banned pile and the real issues of this case have not been fully addressed.

I too do not wish to turn this into a personal attacking session but we do need to accept that our gut instincts can be correct, and should be trusted, and that we should follow our hearts to fight for those with no voice, if we feel an injustice has been done.

This is hard enough without the effort of having to beat off deliberate disrupters who knowingly and deliberately seek to weaken our resolve.

Madeleine has not yet been afforded the dignity and justice which she unquestioningly deserves.

ETA have just seen the other posts and am glad to see that this disruption has been nipped in the bud.
With a clearer vision now, perhaps we can move forward rather than fighting to stay level.

An excellent post if I may say so bobbin.

Totally agree Bluebell,excellent post by bobbin.


I have my own thoughts as why the Smith sighting happened.

caricature wrote:Totally agree Bluebell,excellent post by bobbin.


I have my own thoughts as why the  Smith sighting happened.

Intrigued. Will you share?

chirpyinsect wrote:

caricature wrote:Totally agree Bluebell,excellent post by bobbin.


I have my own thoughts as why the  Smith sighting happened.

Intrigued. Will you share?

Not sure on legalities here,but its to do with timeliness,last visit by GM,sighting soon after by JT.

wlbts wrote:Let's look at the evidence:

1. Pathetic attempts to appear to be male and sexist, that to this particular male aren't entirely convincing and sound very forced; user-name includes the word 'boy' to underline that this person is clearly male

As in "ladyboy"?

Freedom wrote:It was not known with certainty - and still isn't - who flamingboy was.

Who cares, it's been sent back under it's bridge now.

bluebell wrote:




An excellent post if I may say so bobbin.

Agreed.  Excellent bobbin.

This forum certainly caused ants in flamingboy's pants.

Fiat500 wrote:

bluebell wrote:




An excellent post if I may say so bobbin.

Agreed.  Excellent bobbin.

This forum certainly caused ants in flamingboy's pants.

  Bobbin!   Clear and to the point. Exactly what we're trying to achieve.  Thank you!

bobbin wrote:

Andrew wrote:CF - When you wrote this:

Now let's get back to subject in hand re Mr Smith and have an answer shall we?  Here or on your forum don't mind which.

Were you implying that Flamingboy was TB may I ask.....?

Who knows, Andrew, but whatever the affiliation (or not), the sudden arrival of such an obvious disrupter on Tigger's terribly important 'finding' is a distraction not needed.

We were long lead to believe by HWMBO that Smithman was a 'lie' perpetrated by, what most of us still continued to believe was, an innocent family, who acted responsibly and called the police when they had had the time to discuss something that they had seen.

The fact that there are identikit faces can be down to the fact that people do not necessarily have to recall details as in a photographic memory, but in an overall impression, which can be agreed as a very close approximation.

The fact that the faces were different could well be that the two people saw the man from different directions and heights from the ground, having already crossed the road or on coming up from steps below.

The fact that they took a while to call the police could be very similar to the Gaspars.

People who are sincere are often a little reticent about rushing to the police and may even feel that they shouldn't really be contacting or taking up important police time, because they would not want to get possibly entirely innocent people named or involved, in what could be very serious allegations or implications, if their memory or impressions were wrong.

Any reticence could even be interpreted as a sign of how 'decent' this family is.

But TB was determined to be right and tried to make the jigsaw piece fit by bending the info to hand.

To make the 'fit' fit, he has claimed that Andy Redwood is telling untruths re Tannerman, the whole investigation is a whitewash, is making sexist remarks about the new police woman in charge because she is a police WOMAN, has claimed that some FOI info sent to him has been a falsehood and of course, in another series of bold blue bullying sessions has dismissed all evidence of photo-shopping, even the 'screamingly obvious' and impossibly un-overlookable reflections in Gerry's sunglasses, in the last photo.

As for alter-sockos, once someone has been discovered to be garnering 'apparent' support for his questioned and challenged claims of 'facts', then all credibility comes into question.

We have been side-swiped for a long time now (by a person who moved into a position of admin and control of posts) from addressing the real implications of this case and these are serious.

If the photos have been photo-shopped, if the Smiths did see someone who looked like Gerry, then it puts a different weight on whether or not there was pre-meditation, either per se as a planned hoax, or in the event of Madeleine having had a fatal accident earlier in the week than the evening of 3rd May 2007.

In the guise of an almost bigoted religious belief in his own 'right-ness' and its subsequent inflexibility to discuss and accept that others may have different and equally valid views, many have been humiliated and relegated to the banned pile and the real issues of this case have not been fully addressed.

I too do not wish to turn this into a personal attacking session but we do need to accept that our gut instincts can be correct, and should be trusted, and that we should follow our hearts to fight for those with no voice, if we feel an injustice has been done.

This is hard enough without the effort of having to beat off deliberate disrupters who knowingly and deliberately seek to weaken our resolve.

Madeleine has not yet been afforded the dignity and justice which she unquestioningly deserves.





ETA have just seen the other posts and am glad to see that this disruption has been nipped in the bud.
With a clearer vision now, perhaps we can move forward rather than fighting to stay level.

Very well said Bobbin

Excellent work Tigger (and a very succinct post from Bobbin too)

I am so glad that I too went with my instincts on this one, I have always believed the Smiths to be honest and all of the dirt-digging on them, and others who really had no connection to the case whatsoever, made me feel really uneasy..and of course if you questioned it at all, you were shot down in flames as "having an agenda against all of this magnificent research" To me though, it often felt like googling 2 + 2 and coming up with 100,000 (reasons the Smiths lied) or inveigling other innocent bystanders into the ever increasing, web of intrigue.

So I'm really glad we have this place, thanks again to Candyfloss for getting it all started up and along with Freedom, keeping the forum a nice place to be where people can post freely, albeit, sensitively.

Gobsmacked!

Brilliant, Tigger!!

^ And me ! Really good work tigger.

Cristobell, thank you for welcoming me back.

Will the Smith family be quizzed by the Yard too?

Cristobell wrote:Quote deleted.


I have never claimed to have received an email from Martin Smith or indeed had any contact with him at all.  The person who received the said email, was Richard T. Hall.  Tony Bennett claimed I had sent the email to RTH pretending to be Martin Smith.  An allegation that astounded even his most ardent followers.

Haaann? is that true, Cristobell?

Gosh!

marconi wrote:Cristobell, thank you for welcoming me back.

Will the Smith family be quizzed by the Yard too?

Really good to see you Marconi, and glad you are posting.  In my opinion the Smith family have been working with Scotland Yard for quite some time - they are crucial witnesses.  What I don't understand is why their evidence is not enough to bring a prosecution. Perhaps it is because they cannot be 100% certain that it was Gerry they saw and of course Gerry is being protected by the statements of others who claim he was at the Tapas bar when the alarm was raised.  SY cannot prove it was Gerry carrying the child because they have the status quo of one witness's word against another, and the tapas gang, by the look of it are sticking by their stories.  I really hope when the time comes, that the Judge who presides over the prosecution of this case bears in mind the tapas lies that have prevented justice in this case and cost the public millions.  Especially when it comes to the sentencing, because everyone of them have been criminally complicit and everyone of them deserves jail time imo.