Author Topic: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?  (Read 156080 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline misty

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #570 on: February 28, 2016, 11:22:52 PM »
Where is the 'Smith' provenance?

All of the three statements in the public domain state categorically that they were unable to describe the features of the carrier.

If any other member of the family had had such a good look and recall to provide images months after the event ... the question arises of why they did not do so at the time?

How much was it that was defrauded by the alleged source for the efits charging for work which wasn't carried out ... £300,000 if I remember correctly ... a lot anyway.
So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source?

I can't think of one.

We have no idea of the circumstances in which SY decided these efits were worth publicising.  It won't have been done lightly, and who is to say whether or not they  have fulfilled their function.
No doubt we shall be informed in the fullness of time.

It is worth noting that MS had at least 2 opportunities to help the original investigation by producing efits.
He made his additional statement on 23/1/2008 to the Gardai.
16_VOLUMEXVIa_Page_4136
16_VOLUMEXVIa_Page_4137
He was approached by Kennedy prior to 23/1/2008
(see statement)

On neither occasion did he state he or anyone in his family had sufficient recollection of the person they allegedly saw to produce an efit.
It would be interesting to know at what stage the Smiths made their decision to co-operate with Oakley, bearing in mind when the PI's final report was submitted to the McCanns, and also why they chose not to tell LP/PJ about their actions at the time.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #571 on: February 28, 2016, 11:26:49 PM »
'So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source? I can't think of one.

Neither can I"

So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum would not strive to launch criminal proceedings against that criminal ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline misty

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #572 on: February 28, 2016, 11:55:02 PM »
'So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source? I can't think of one.

Neither can I"

So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum would not strive to launch criminal proceedings against that criminal ?

Are his whereabouts known?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #573 on: February 29, 2016, 12:00:24 AM »
Are his whereabouts known?

They were at the time the fund was defrauded.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline misty

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #574 on: February 29, 2016, 12:22:35 AM »
They were at the time the fund was defrauded.

I doubt it would be straightforward. Legal costs would be excessive with little chance of restitution.
He operated out of the US. The contract was agreed with Oakley International. Money was paid into the company’s American account through a middle company called Housing Agent Holdings. Sounds like another fund I just can't quite put a name to right now.


Offline G-Unit

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #575 on: February 29, 2016, 08:00:35 AM »
Where is the 'Smith' provenance?

All of the three statements in the public domain state categorically that they were unable to describe the features of the carrier.

If any other member of the family had had such a good look and recall to provide images months after the event ... the question arises of why they did not do so at the time?

How much was it that was defrauded by the alleged source for the efits charging for work which wasn't carried out ... £300,000 if I remember correctly ... a lot anyway.
So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source?

I can't think of one.

We have no idea of the circumstances in which SY decided these efits were worth publicising.  It won't have been done lightly, and who is to say whether or not they  have fulfilled their function.
No doubt we shall be informed in the fullness of time.

Oakley aka Halligen was the one who took money under false pretenses. Oakley's contract ended acrimoniously in September 2008.

The report and e-fits surfaced in November 2008. It seems that those subcontracted by Oakley who did produce the report and e-fits approached the McCanns with them six weeks after Halligen was sacked. They were also victims because he didn't pay them what he owed them for work carried out.





Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Benice

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #576 on: February 29, 2016, 08:15:29 AM »
'So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum should put their trust in anything emanating from a criminal source? I can't think of one.

Neither can I"

So can anyone suggest any reason why anyone having been robbed of such a sum would not strive to launch criminal proceedings against that criminal ?

Because he was already being prosecuted by other victims and anyway it would just be throwing good money after bad.      Did any of his other victims get back any of the millions (?) he conned out of them?   I very much doubt it.   


The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline faithlilly

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #577 on: February 29, 2016, 11:22:07 AM »
I doubt it would be straightforward. Legal costs would be excessive with little chance of restitution.
He operated out of the US. The contract was agreed with Oakley International. Money was paid into the company’s American account through a middle company called Housing Agent Holdings. Sounds like another fund I just can't quite put a name to right now.

I'm sure it wouldn't be straightforward but it would seem they didn't even try at least Kate says nothing about exploring criminal charges in her book.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #578 on: February 29, 2016, 11:34:38 AM »
I'm sure it wouldn't be straightforward but it would seem they didn't even try at least Kate says nothing about exploring criminal charges in her book.

There wouldn't have been any point.  The money was gone.  And Halligen was heading for an American Prison.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #579 on: February 29, 2016, 11:39:02 AM »
There wouldn't have been any point.  The money was gone.  And Halligen was heading for an American Prison.

Of course there would be a point. The credibility of the fund if nothing else. It seems though they didn't learn from this inaction and when faced with the alleged defrauding of the fund by Metodo3 they did nothing AGAIN. You really have to wonder why.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #580 on: February 29, 2016, 11:51:30 AM »
Of course there would be a point. The credibility of the fund if nothing else. It seems though they didn't learn from this inaction and when faced with the alleged defrauding of the fund by Metodo3 they did nothing AGAIN. You really have to wonder why.

Halligen didn't have any money left to recover.  And he did full fill some of the remit.  Or do you think they should have been arguing about that?

Did any of his unpaid employees sue him?  I don't think so.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #581 on: February 29, 2016, 12:32:32 PM »
Halligen didn't have any money left to recover.  And he did full fill some of the remit.  Or do you think they should have been arguing about that?

Did any of his unpaid employees sue him?  I don't think so.

Bringing a criminal case is not about money and the defrauding of the fund, if we are to believe what we have read, would certainly fit the criminal definition of fraud.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a07

Perhaps the fund's unwillingness  to pursue the fraud perpetrated on it by Halligen was more about what may be disclosed.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #582 on: February 29, 2016, 12:42:51 PM »
Bringing a criminal case is not about money and the defrauding of the fund, if we are to believe what we have read, would certainly fit the criminal definition of fraud.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a07

Perhaps the fund's unwillingness  to pursue the fraud perpetrated on it by Halligen was more about what may be disclosed.

The McCanns couldn't bring a Criminal Case.  The Police would have to do that.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #583 on: February 29, 2016, 12:59:38 PM »
The McCanns couldn't bring a Criminal Case.  The Police would have to do that.

And they would report to the police that they had been defrauded.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #584 on: February 29, 2016, 01:03:23 PM »
And they would report to the police that they had been defrauded.
There's still plenty of time for that.