TWO MARTIN SMITHS - response by Tony Bennett

Just to reassure Tony, yes, Sonia does know about the Richard T. Hall videos and she also knows they failed to hit the spot because they were riddled with inaccuracies supplied to the unfortunate Mr. Hall by Tony Bennett.

wlbts wrote:Tony commented over there on the weekend about Sonia Poulton trying to make a documentary about the McCann case.  This is what he wrote:

'Er, has anyone told her about Richard D. Hall's 4.5 hour film, 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann', which has now had over half a million views in just 4 months on his channel (www.madeleinedocumentary.com), on YouTube, and on his DVDs?

Would she not be far better engaged promoting that - and moving on to something else?'


Does anybody disagree with me that the more information that is out there for the public to view the better?  The man is pure ego, everything else comes second.

That actually sounds like something that Gerry McCann would say, it really does. Last time I looked, this was still a free country and people could discuss what they liked.

And phoning up people at work about a post they made on the internet? FFS, what does that even sound like, how old is this person, 13? He wants to grow up and grow a hide.

A bit at a tangent: I admit that I haven't watched the Hall videos but I understood from someone who has that there was only the briefest mention of the Smiths and their sighting, certainly nothing about Mr Smith's believed business interests.

Is there more then about the Smiths on the videos and what other inaccuracies are there?

Would someone be kind enough to put together a list of the inaccuracies in Mr Hall's film? I understood that there were a few minor things but didn't think there was much. It would be interesting to compare the inaccuracies with Mr Bennetts posts to see if he is the source of the errors.

wlbts wrote:Tony commented over there on the weekend about Sonia Poulton trying to make a documentary about the McCann case.  This is what he wrote:

'Er, has anyone told her about Richard D. Hall's 4.5 hour film, 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann', which has now had over half a million views in just 4 months on his channel (www.madeleinedocumentary.com), on YouTube, and on his DVDs?

Would she not be far better engaged promoting that - and moving on to something else?'


Does anybody disagree with me that the more information that is out there for the public to view the better?  The man is pure ego, everything else comes second.

Totally agree with you wlbts. The more info out there the better. He is ego indeed, but Tigger changed the last letter "o" to an "g" and its all over his face. If you notice his strange (roll eyes)email from Martin Smith, its all me me me or you you you Mr Bennett is doing a great job in seeking the truth for Madeleine. Strange fella...Very strange.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

jumbo wrote:Mr Peabody has run rings round Bennett before,in fact he is the dogs bollocks.

Was that on a 'Smiths' subject? I'd like to take part but alas I'm banned.

No, weeks ago when Bennett tried to  diss the dogs.
You were onto him and a big thank you for your support at the time.

Me, this really is going way off topic and something which happened a long time ago.  Now, I cannot remember the ins and outs of all this.  I do remember something being discussed, but like you saying yesterday you couldn't remember, I'm afraid my memory is the same....it was so long ago, and so many were discussed.  
I do remember one thing which you have got wrong though.  I will send you a pm.

Please can we get back to the important point of Mr Smith now.

Freedom wrote:A bit at a tangent: I admit that I haven't watched the Hall videos but I understood from someone who has that there was only the briefest mention of the Smiths and their sighting, certainly nothing about Mr Smith's believed business interests.

Is there more then about the Smiths on the videos and what other inaccuracies are there?

Freedom, what was apparent to me from the four videos is that Hall based his documentaries heavily on Bennett's research, which is no bad thing in my mind. Thus there was material on Brian Kennedy, Metodo 3, Jim Gamble and a lot of the wider aspects of the case which TB is keen on; further, there was mention that 'he could do a whole film on Murat and may do so in future', which brings to mind TB's excellent article 'Murat: from Arguido to Applause'

My memory may be betraying me, but if I recall properly, there was no mention of the Smith's business interests. Rather the Smith sighting was mentioned but not used as stone wall evidence of the McCann's guilt. I think Hall may have hinted that he cast some doubt on it. [Then again I recall it caused a bit of controversy at the time, so my mind may be playing tricks and he possibly said more] Anyway I'm 60-80% sure of what I'm saying.

Perhaps he will go for a third and work his way up to a set of 6 matching Smiths as a Christmas gift to someone?

Long-winded and self-centred, as usual. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn Mr. Bennett...

wlbts wrote:Tony commented over there on the weekend about Sonia Poulton trying to make a documentary about the McCann case.  This is what he wrote:

'Er, has anyone told her about Richard D. Hall's 4.5 hour film, 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann', which has now had over half a million views in just 4 months on his channel (www.madeleinedocumentary.com), on YouTube, and on his DVDs?

Would she not be far better engaged promoting that - and moving on to something else?'


Does anybody disagree with me that the more information that is out there for the public to view the better?  The man is pure ego, everything else comes second.

What business is it of his what Sonia Poulton does? As the man who has done more harm than good for the cause, I would think he is the last person to be dishing out advise to others. I am sure Sonia is far too sensible to listen to him.

There are two long posts again undermining Sonia today, as well as promoting hi RD Hall's videos. In response to one poster who lauded the influence of users of the forums, Twitter and facebook in bringing 'Buried by Mainstream Media...' to the attention of many he said this, amongst a lot of other things:

"Without any promotion at all on Twitter, Facebook or any forums, people saw the films and instantly recognised their merit. The most striking illustration of this was that within days of the film's publication in early August, NINE different people had INDEPENDENTLY uploaded TWENTY-SIX YouTube videos of all or part of his film. This accounts for spme 240,000 views to date. 

In addition, such was the power and instant impact of his film, that many others warmly recommended."

Now this is, of course, his opinion which he is very entitled to. But to me, it's completely out of touch, almost in denial,
particularly if he has had the influence we believe him to have had.

There is still a vast difference between getting the information out into the mainstream media and it being viewed many times on YouTube.

The latter can be dismissed as being the territory of Internet nutters and conspiracy freaks.

It's not right that it should be like that though. Anything that alerts the public to a miscarriage of justice should be available everywhere.

Rowena wrote:

wlbts wrote:Tony commented over there on the weekend about Sonia Poulton trying to make a documentary about the McCann case.  This is what he wrote:

'Er, has anyone told her about Richard D. Hall's 4.5 hour film, 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann', which has now had over half a million views in just 4 months on his channel (www.madeleinedocumentary.com), on YouTube, and on his DVDs?

Would she not be far better engaged promoting that - and moving on to something else?'


Does anybody disagree with me that the more information that is out there for the public to view the better?  The man is pure ego, everything else comes second.

 What business is it of his what Sonia Poulton does? As the man who has done more harm than good for the cause,  I would think he is the last person to be dishing out advise to others.  I am sure Sonia is far too sensible to listen to him.

He can't be very secure in his RD Hall's theories if he feels the need to discredit Sonia, and try to get her to promote his views instead of her own.

Mr Bennett has this evening posted another scathing attack on Sonia Poulton's career to date. In particular he slams three bad professional misjudgements: interviews with Cristobel(Rosalinda Hutton), Stephen Birch and barrister Michael Shrimpton. I'm pretty sure Michael Shrimpton acted for Mr Bennett some years ago in a case unrelated to Madeleine; but he doesn't mention this. Nor does he mention his own recent and very bad misjudgement in attacking the wrong Martin Smith...!

Why the need for this negativity over her proposed documentary? I wish her the best of luck with it.

To be fair, I believe that Mr B dropped Michael Shrimpton like a hot potato some years ago on realising just how bizarre (polite speak for crazy) some of his views are.

I'm certainly prepared to give Sonia a chance with her new video.

Maybe she has learned from past experience - not that I'm saying that the interview with Cristobel was a dreadful mistake like the other two!

Freedom wrote:To be fair, I believe that Mr B dropped Michael Shrimpton like a hot potato some years ago on realising just how bizarre (polite speak for crazy) some of his views are.

I'm certainly prepared to give Sonia a chance with her new video.

Maybe she has learned from past experience - not that I'm saying that the interview with Cristobel was a dreadful mistake like the other two!

My point is that Mr Bennett would also appear to have made a bad judgement with Mr Shrimpton. The fact that he dropped him as his barrister does not make it less of a bad judgement and its hypocritical of him not to have mentioned it. We all make mistakes in our work and family lives and hopefully we learn from them. Surely we all want justice for madeleine and nobody should be attacking Sonia over a documentary that does not yet exist.

Mr. B seems to have a sincere problem with [intelligent, experienced, seasoned] women. Or am I mistaken?

Antonia wrote:

Freedom wrote:To be fair, I believe that Mr B dropped Michael Shrimpton like a hot potato some years ago on realising just how bizarre (polite speak for crazy) some of his views are.

I'm certainly prepared to give Sonia a chance with her new video.

Maybe she has learned from past experience - not that I'm saying that the interview with Cristobel was a dreadful mistake like the other two!

My point is that Mr Bennett would also appear to have made a bad judgement with Mr Shrimpton. The fact that he dropped him as his barrister does not make it less of a bad judgement and its hypocritical of him not to have mentioned it. We all make mistakes in our work and family lives and hopefully we learn from them. Surely we all want justice for madeleine and nobody should be attacking Sonia over a documentary that does not yet exist.

Nail on the head Antonia.......attacks on things that haven't happened. First DCI Wall and now Sonia Poulton, not even given a chance to prove themselves, I cannot understand why the need to do this. Let's wait and see what they come up with, then give our opinions and judgement.

Given her constant crawling,
I was wondering if Aquila is TB when he puts a frock on.
Is that a conspiracy too far?

I have met Aquila and can put your mind at rest, Jumbo. She is definitely not anybody else!

Freedom wrote:I have met Aquila and can put your mind at rest, Jumbo. She is definitely not anybody else!

Thank you.

Why should someone only interview safe and possibly very boring subjects? I did not see the interviews with Cristobel, Birch and Shrimpton so I have no idea how interesting/revealing they were/were not. Choosing eccentrics (being polite) to interview is risky but can lead to a fascinating interview. Also, depending on the context, the interviewer may have no choice in the interviewee; the producer says get an interview with Mr X and Ms Y. I don't think its appropriate or fair to castigate someone because in recent times they have gone for colourful maybe slightly mad people to interview.

Chatelaine made a good point about Mr Bennett's possible issues with confident independent women.

Antonia wrote:

Freedom wrote:To be fair, I believe that Mr B dropped Michael Shrimpton like a hot potato some years ago on realising just how bizarre (polite speak for crazy) some of his views are.

I'm certainly prepared to give Sonia a chance with her new video.

Maybe she has learned from past experience - not that I'm saying that the interview with Cristobel was a dreadful mistake like the other two!

My point is that Mr Bennett would also appear to have made a bad judgement with Mr Shrimpton. The fact that he dropped him as his barrister does not make it less of a bad judgement and its hypocritical of him not to have mentioned it. We all make mistakes in our work and family lives and hopefully we learn from them. Surely we all want justice for madeleine and nobody should be attacking Sonia over a documentary that does not yet exist.

He should be grateful to Shrimpton for getting him off on a charge of theft (I have a rather hilarious account of the case) on that occasion the great campaigner when caught stealing traffic signs gave a false name and denied theft as it was apparently legal for him to remove traffic signs.
It's worth a read - I have the link somewhere. 
It's lovely,  he said he buried the signs in four different places (so they weren't stolen)  and giving a false name was explained by the fact that he panicked.

To be honest, I had no idea about how big a mystery Madeleine McCann's disappearance was until I read about Birch's claims in the paper. It was the bit of information that reached me and made me start reading.
So all these interviews can bring new people into the light on what has been going on.