From Myths with thanks.
Posted on 6 Jun 2014 16:25:34 BDT
watcher says:
I am sick to death of this ridiculous nonsense from Bennett.
He claims there were similarities between Tannerman and Smithman and appears to believe this is because
''Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone''
He lists the ''similarities''
1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no push-chair
3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl
5. The child was barefoot
6. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man's left side
9. She didn't have a blanket or other covering
10. The men did not look like tourists
11. They were wearing a dark jacket
12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13. They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5' 9" - 5' 10")
14. They were both aged 35-40
15. They were of average build
16. They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man's face be seen.
So let's see, shall we?
From my point of view, Bennett is talking absolute nonsense
Imagine we were instead discussing cars. Let's say that on one evening, two cars were seen, and they were both a dark coloured Ford Focus.
Is that remarkable?
Well no, not really. It is an extremely popular family car, and, in the UK certainly, is one of the most numerous.
So what do we have here?
We have a holiday village. We have a night creche. We have a society where it's common for children to accompany their parents out to dinner.
Do we assume that seeing a man carrying a child home to bed is an unusual occurence? No, of course not. We know from witness accounts that this is quite a common sight in PdL.
We know that at the Mark Warner night creche alone there were 8 children staying for a while so that the parents could go out to dinner
It's impossible to put a number on how many times over the space of an evening a man would be somewhere on the streets of PdL carrying a child, but it's certainly not unusual
So - unaccompanied male. Not unusual
Carrying a child, no pushchair. Not unusual
The child was blond - many caucasian children are, even if their hair later darkens. the resort was popular with Northern European, where fair colouring predominates - so not unusual
The child was a girl - 50% of them are. Not unusual.
The child was barefoot - Little bit of a fib here by Bennett. None of the Smith witnesses described her as barefoot. So that's just a Bennett lie
The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas - two of the Smith group describe light coloured clothing, and ''could'' have been pyjamas. It is hardly unusual for a young girl to wear light couloured clothing - when did you last see a four year old girl in a black overcoat? - Hence, not unusual
She looked about four years old - well, any older and it's unlikely she would be carried, and this is nonsense anyway as we now know that one of them was only 2 - fib by Bennett
She was being held on the man's left side - most people are right handed and would thus carry a child on their left. - not relevant
She didn't have a blanket or other covering - the temperature in PdL that night was 16 degrees. Hardly cold. Not relevant
The men did not look like tourists - Utterly irrelevant as we know at least one of them was - convenient Bennett fib
They were wearing a dark jacket - Another Bennett lie. None of the Smiths mention a jacket, dark or otherwise in their september statements. Martin Smith the following year says ''maybe a darkish top''
They were wearing light-coloured trousers - two choices, dark or light. Not unusual
They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall - ie, average height. Not significant
They were both aged 35-40 - this is probably about the average age range for the male holidaymakers with a young child. Not at all significant
They were of average build - the key word is ''average'' - so not significant
They were spotted within 600 yards of each other - and? That's most of the resort. Not significant
In neither case could the man's face be seen. - not a similarilty in the sighting. ''I didn't see'' is not a similarity.
It's also quite clear that the officers interviewing the Smiths were already familiar with Jane Tanner's description of the man she saw, so specifically asked them about aspects of the man they may not have otherwise particularly noticed.
Overall, then, there was nothing about these descriptions to particularly set them apart from any other. His suggestion that Martin Smith made his son and Granddaughter lie in order to alibi an acquaintance is ridiculous and disgusting
His allegations about Mr Smith's business affairs are also appalling. To claim that certain listed directors were ''invented'' simply because he personally doesn't believe they were reallydirectors and then to admit that he hadn't checked this out prior to making the false allegation is just disgraceful.
Posted on 6 Jun 2014 16:25:34 BDT
watcher says:
I am sick to death of this ridiculous nonsense from Bennett.
He claims there were similarities between Tannerman and Smithman and appears to believe this is because
''Both Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were working to a script and neither actually saw anyone''
He lists the ''similarities''
1. An unaccompanied male
2. Carrying a child and having no push-chair
3. The child was blonde
4. The child was a girl
5. The child was barefoot
6. The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas
7. She looked about four years old
8. She was being held on the man's left side
9. She didn't have a blanket or other covering
10. The men did not look like tourists
11. They were wearing a dark jacket
12. They were wearing light-coloured trousers
13. They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall (5' 9" - 5' 10")
14. They were both aged 35-40
15. They were of average build
16. They were spotted within 600 yards of each other
17. In neither case could the man's face be seen.
So let's see, shall we?
From my point of view, Bennett is talking absolute nonsense
Imagine we were instead discussing cars. Let's say that on one evening, two cars were seen, and they were both a dark coloured Ford Focus.
Is that remarkable?
Well no, not really. It is an extremely popular family car, and, in the UK certainly, is one of the most numerous.
So what do we have here?
We have a holiday village. We have a night creche. We have a society where it's common for children to accompany their parents out to dinner.
Do we assume that seeing a man carrying a child home to bed is an unusual occurence? No, of course not. We know from witness accounts that this is quite a common sight in PdL.
We know that at the Mark Warner night creche alone there were 8 children staying for a while so that the parents could go out to dinner
It's impossible to put a number on how many times over the space of an evening a man would be somewhere on the streets of PdL carrying a child, but it's certainly not unusual
So - unaccompanied male. Not unusual
Carrying a child, no pushchair. Not unusual
The child was blond - many caucasian children are, even if their hair later darkens. the resort was popular with Northern European, where fair colouring predominates - so not unusual
The child was a girl - 50% of them are. Not unusual.
The child was barefoot - Little bit of a fib here by Bennett. None of the Smith witnesses described her as barefoot. So that's just a Bennett lie
The child was wearing light-coloured/pink pyjamas - two of the Smith group describe light coloured clothing, and ''could'' have been pyjamas. It is hardly unusual for a young girl to wear light couloured clothing - when did you last see a four year old girl in a black overcoat? - Hence, not unusual
She looked about four years old - well, any older and it's unlikely she would be carried, and this is nonsense anyway as we now know that one of them was only 2 - fib by Bennett
She was being held on the man's left side - most people are right handed and would thus carry a child on their left. - not relevant
She didn't have a blanket or other covering - the temperature in PdL that night was 16 degrees. Hardly cold. Not relevant
The men did not look like tourists - Utterly irrelevant as we know at least one of them was - convenient Bennett fib
They were wearing a dark jacket - Another Bennett lie. None of the Smiths mention a jacket, dark or otherwise in their september statements. Martin Smith the following year says ''maybe a darkish top''
They were wearing light-coloured trousers - two choices, dark or light. Not unusual
They were both about 1.75m to 1.8m tall - ie, average height. Not significant
They were both aged 35-40 - this is probably about the average age range for the male holidaymakers with a young child. Not at all significant
They were of average build - the key word is ''average'' - so not significant
They were spotted within 600 yards of each other - and? That's most of the resort. Not significant
In neither case could the man's face be seen. - not a similarilty in the sighting. ''I didn't see'' is not a similarity.
It's also quite clear that the officers interviewing the Smiths were already familiar with Jane Tanner's description of the man she saw, so specifically asked them about aspects of the man they may not have otherwise particularly noticed.
Overall, then, there was nothing about these descriptions to particularly set them apart from any other. His suggestion that Martin Smith made his son and Granddaughter lie in order to alibi an acquaintance is ridiculous and disgusting
His allegations about Mr Smith's business affairs are also appalling. To claim that certain listed directors were ''invented'' simply because he personally doesn't believe they were reallydirectors and then to admit that he hadn't checked this out prior to making the false allegation is just disgraceful.
