The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

by Lance De Boils 05.11.13 21:37

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:Can some enlighten me about this Kellys Bar receipt for 21:55pm?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

There's an entry 21:50 then it jumps to 22:16
Thank you for raising this point.

I have always understood that the story was that the Smiths paid their 'bar billl' at 9.55pm, then walked out of Kelly's Bar on their way back to the Estrela da Luz complex, seeing Smithman at about 10.00pm.

I have always taken it on trust that there existed a receipt for drinks, ordered by the Smiths, at 9.55pm. I assumed that for some reason the Smiths had kept the receipt themselves.

Here we have the till receipts from 8pm to midnight.

If indeed there are no receipts between 9.50pm and 10.16pm, then are we to assume that the Smiths paid their bar bill at 9.50pm? I can't read the receipts very easily.

I assume then that (if it is indeed theirs) the 9.50pm receipt would be for around 9 (or more) drinks?

The whole timing of the Smiths' 'sighting' has been fixed around this 9.55pm receipt, so one way or another, these till receipts must prove which one is theirs.
I am not sure if anyone has carried this point on any further.

I have now checked the till receipts mentioned by SixMillionQuid.

There are 20 receipts, total value during the four hours: 148.50 euros

This is a full record of them, from 8.00pm on 3 May 2007 to 12.02am:

8.01 18.25 euros

8.15 3.15 euros

8.20 24.50 euros

8.52 1.50 euros

9.39 13.75 euros

9.46 8.00 euros

9.49 8.00 euros

9.50 5.00 euros

10.16 8.00 euros

10.24 4.00 euros

10.28 3.00 euros

10.29 1.25 euros

10.31 5.75 euros

10.47 1.00 euros

10.53 16.50 euros

11.09 5.75 euros

11.30 5.75 euros

11.49 10.00 euros

11.50 2.75 euros

12.02 2.50 euros

The four in bold are the only four that fit the Smiths' account of moving from the Dolphin restaurant at 'between 9.00pm and 9.30pm to Kelly's Bar' and leaving 'around or shortly before 10.00pm'.

I cannot find any information about which (if any of them) is said to be the Smiths' bill.

All four IMO are small bills for a family of 9. The Smiths do not say what they ordered.

8 euros might buy 3 or 4 drinks.

Did they pay when the drinks were ordered? - probably.

Or when they left? - unlikely.

So, did they order 13.50 euros worth of drinks at 9.39pm - and then leave about quarter of an hour later? We do not know.
That's some research!!

The reason why I asked about the 9:55 receipt is that if some is going to use it proof it will be date/time stamped the time the transaction took place. If hey held onto this receipt then there should be a corresponding record from the cash register. But the PJ obtained the cash registers months later and copied the records from the registers then the 9:55 entry should show up.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

But it doesn't. So I'm wondering what the receipt is that they are referring to

This discussion started in another thread - but feel it deserves to be a topic in its own right.

I'm jumping in because this could be very important.

I've been looking at these receipts myself.

I don't think it likely that the family paid individually. Although not impossible, I'd plump for them paying together.
If bars in Portugal work the same as most other countries, except the UK, it is normal to pay just before leaving.

The receipts that look most likely to be the Smiths' are (based on the prices) imo:

21:39 (Eu 13.75 Bar) <--- that's the one closest to the given time.

But, had the Smiths' made a mistake? (Intentionally or otherwise?) Had they gone for a drink or two BEFORE heading to the restaurant? If so, these are possibilities:

20:26 (Eu 24.50 Bar)
20:01 (Eu 18.25 Bar)

Or just popped in for cigarettes?
20:15 (Eu 3.15 cigarettes)

Or were their times an hour too early? If so, these:

22:47 (Eu 11.00 Bar)
22:53 (Eu 16.50 Bar)

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Smiths' sighting timing is not right. Maybe they were leaned on. Maybe not.
But it does seem to me that their sighting was at least a few minutes out.
Perhaps even 60-90 mins...?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 21:57

The other possibility that really must be considered is that they were not in Kelly's Bar at all that night.

The bar manager/owner was asked if he could remember a family of nine with several young children being in his bar for half-an-hour to an hour on Thursday 3 May - and he couldn't. Admittedly to recollect one evening four months ago is not easy - though it was a memorable night in Praia da Luz, and quite possibly news of a missing child might have spread to Kelly's Bar before their closing time (after midnight).

The Smiths have not said what drinks were ordered and when they paid.

Nothing stands out on the bill as being obviously theirs.

They say that they had eaten at The Dolphin restaurant earlier in the evening.

by soundworks 05.11.13 22:02

I may be wrong here but when ive been in somebars you order drinks

so say maybe only 4 of them wanted a drink say at 8 euro then a receipt would be printed off

now say 10 mins later 2 kids wanted a drink say 5 euro then another receipt would be printed off and attached to first receipt

this can go on for another few drinks then you get your final bill adding them up but not supplying a final total reciept

in other bars they just give you a final receipt with all your drinks on

by MaryB 05.11.13 22:11

I can't think of any reason why all this doubt is being thrown onto this Smith sighting. I think it sounds very credible and always have done. And I've always wondered why it wasn't given more prominence. I'd like to know the exact time when all the Tapas left the bar except for DW.

by justathought 05.11.13 22:30

Mr de Boils
as with much of the case, it would be easy to confirm events if we had more information.
as to the smiths visiting Kellys bar, it would have been easy for the PJ to have timed and date stamped where they were that night. interviewing kelly bar staff, confirming date and time of till correct. if not then you work back to the till receipt from previous visit to restaurant.

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 22:34

I don't see anything amiss with the receipts. My kids very often drink one coke early on and then don't want anything later. I see no reason to doubt that the Smiths were in Kelly's Bar at all. And I see nothing here that could possibly make me accuse a family of 9 of being liars.

by MaryB 05.11.13 22:41

Sometimes this system is used. Drinks are bought a bill is issued but not paid. More drinks are bought another bill is issued. And so on. And then you settle all the bills at once when you leave the bar. Not sure if this system was in operation.

by Lance De Boils 05.11.13 22:42

Hi MaryB.

First, let me clarify my position on the Smith sighting.

I don't, as yet, discount them seeing a man carrying a child.

However, at this stage what I am calling into question is the accuracy of the timing of their sighting.

What we do know is that the Smiths may or may not know Murat more closely than was told. I am undecided on that for now.

We also know that the Smiths were "got at " by BK & Co.

Now, I believe that Jane Tanner DID see someone carrying a child.
BUT I don't believe it was where/when she said.

For example, had she seen Wilkins the night before (Wed) when he was carrying his sleeping, blonde 3 year old daughter, wrapped in a blanket, from the creche to their apt? We know that he did just that.

Did Jane, for whatever reason, use this as a basis for the "abductor" sighting?

It is far easier to lie when you have something to picture in your mind. Something that really did happen, albeit at a different time. It's easier to lie if all you have to change is the day of the week or adjust the hour by one, either fwd or back. It helps a liar justify their falsehood to themselves.

In a quest to test the veracity of the Smiths' sighting, I'm considering the same principle to see if it could possibly have applied to them.

Either by genuine mistake, or otherwise.

At the moment, the till receipts don't seem to tie with the time we've been given of 9.55-10.00.

So I'm trying to rationalise this.

What it would mean, is that IF it was GM that they saw, it might not have been at the given time. It might have been earlier, later or on a different night altogether.

Which, apart from anything else, would blow Gerry's alibi right out of the water.

by MaryB 05.11.13 22:48

I agree with you re Jane Tanner maybe getting her nights mixed up. Because even on the reconstruction she was talking about Gerry McCann being away a while because of football and then somebody said no that was the night before and then quickly went on to talk about something else. I don't think it's likely that nine people could have all got the time wrong. I think it's more important of the exact time the alarm was raised. I've read some witnesses said a lot earlier like 9.30 - 9.40.

by Smokeandmirrors 05.11.13 22:50

MaryB wrote:I can't think of any reason why all this doubt is being thrown onto this Smith sighting. I think it sounds very credible and always have done. And I've always wondered why it wasn't given more prominence. I'd like to know the exact time when all the Tapas left the bar except for DW.

I always thought it was credible too Mary, BUT if we consider WHY the McCanns put this sighting second place to Janes, it starts to make sense. We thought they suppressed the e-fits because Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry, and we know Smith was at least acquainted with Murat, who Jane tried to identify too as the abductor and it starts looking more like some weird game is being played by several people here.

Murat "this is the worlds biggest cock up"
Gerry "No comment"
Brian Kennedy goes to Ireland to see Smith
SY looking at phone pings….
Sergei Malinka "Fala" by his burnt out car
Exeter connection / Murats last minute flight booking and departure 4am 28th April

Not sure how the pieces all fall together but they are there in front of us.

by Guest 05.11.13 23:00

Re the last point, Robert Murat returned to Portugal on 1st May, not 28th April.

by bellum 05.11.13 23:06

I think that Mrs Webster said that when she arrived at 5a that night, Gerry was not there. She was told that he was searching for Madeleine. ( It was the 1st and the last time he did it. Too busy behind the scenes.)Lol.

If the Smiths are a problem, we still have Tapas 7.

by chillyheat 05.11.13 23:12

Can anyone point me to links that show that the Tapas group were seen in various pubs in the area. Im sure its been mentioned. It could be quite helpful.

by bellum 05.11.13 23:13

What does Murat's flight on May the 1st have to do with the case? Did Mrs Fenn phone him?

by Mirage 05.11.13 23:17

Can I just say that I was the first to mention the subject of the bar bill and its time on the last thread anyway(page 6). I consequently mentioned it again a little later on in the same thread because I thought it was so important with regard to testing the veracity of the Smith statements as well as the time being relevant to when GM was seen at the OC.

I was disappointed that no one replied and I sometimes feel as if I'm talking to myself. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that some great research has followed on from that and the bar bill broken down like that is interesting.

I don't want to make a fuss but I think sometimes newish posters (which I am after an unavoidable absence from the forum) can be put off if they are rarely acknowledged. Thanks to those who have replied though.

I shall read on now with interest.

by bellum 05.11.13 23:21

It could be that the clock on the register machine of the Kelly's was not showing the exact time.

by Guest 05.11.13 23:25

Mirage, don't take it to heart if sometimes people don't reply to your post. Threads tend to move very fast, and you read a post and think I must comment on that, but then lots of others pop up and sometimes you just get missed. No-one replies to mine either big grin

by chillyheat 05.11.13 23:34

candyfloss wrote:Mirage, don't take it to heart if sometimes people don't reply to your post. Threads tend to move very fast, and you read a post and think I must comment on that, but then lots of others pop up and sometimes you just get missed. No-one replies to mine either

nice post candy big grin

by Mirage 05.11.13 23:37

candyfloss wrote:Mirage, don't take it to heart if sometimes people don't reply to your post. Threads tend to move very fast, and you read a post and think I must comment on that, but then lots of others pop up and sometimes you just get missed. No-one replies to mine either

Thank you CF. I do understand what you're saying and I realise the threads have moved at an unprecedented speed recently, often with those long quotes. Most of the time I don't bother about it, as you say - it just happens that way to most of us a lot of the time. But I thought the bar bill and its time was so pivotal to the discussion and I'd kept the comment about it short and sharp so as not to be lost in the middle of a lengthy spiel. But nada. So I repeated it and .... nada. And now it has suddenly become such a big talking point that I'm just surprised, I suppose.

C'est la vie. Anyway, it's good to be back. I did read here over the months away and try to keep up but wasn't well enough to post at that time.

roses

by MRNOODLES 06.11.13 0:31

Lance De Boils wrote:Hi MaryB.

First, let me clarify my position on the Smith sighting.

I don't, as yet, discount them seeing a man carrying a child.

However, at this stage what I am calling into question is the accuracy of the timing of their sighting.

What we do know is that the Smiths may or may not know Murat more closely than was told. I am undecided on that for now.

We also know that the Smiths were "got at " by BK & Co.

Now, I believe that Jane Tanner DID see someone carrying a child.
BUT I don't believe it was where/when she said.

For example, had she seen Wilkins the night before (Wed) when he was carrying his sleeping, blonde 3 year old daughter, wrapped in a blanket, from the creche to their apt? We know that he did just that.

Did Jane, for whatever reason, use this as a basis for the "abductor" sighting?

It is far easier to lie when you have something to picture in your mind. Something that really did happen, albeit at a different time. It's easier to lie if all you have to change is the day of the week or adjust the hour by one, either fwd or back. It helps a liar justify their falsehood to themselves.

In a quest to test the veracity of the Smiths' sighting, I'm considering the same principle to see if it could possibly have applied to them.

Either by genuine mistake, or otherwise.

At the moment, the till receipts don't seem to tie with the time we've been given of 9.55-10.00.

So I'm trying to rationalise this.

What it would mean, is that IF it was GM that they saw, it might not have been at the given time. It might have been earlier, later or on a different night altogether.

Which, apart from anything else, would blow Gerry's alibi right out of the water.

I've always had the feeling that the McCs and Tanner etc have used the tactic of transposing previous experiences onto their story telling of the 'disappearance'.

Yes all these little stories of doors slamming, and fatherly pride at a sleeping child, have all happened but transposing them all onto a May 3rd timeline has been a total balls up.

by logical 06.11.13 2:03

According to the Maddie case files there is only statements from 3 members of the Smith family,

Mr Martin Smith his son Peter Smith and his 12 year old Daughter Aoife.

All 3 clearly stated the time of sighting was AROUND 9.50 -10 PM ( the in other words approx., about, I guess etc)

I cant see anywhere in any of the statements where they state an exact time because they have a drinks receipt to prove it??

Young Aoife gave an honest description of Smithman including distinctive buttons on his beige trousers which incedently GM had a pair of ?
Martin Smith didn't know Murat personally and only states he saw Murat in the pub the previous year making a spectacle of himself in front of many of the bar customers and obviously his observations of Murat on that occasion stuck with him, how many of us here have experienced similar situations of a drunkard making a nuisance of himself to anyone and everyone in a Bar? No sober person forgets these drunk nuisances in a hurry and that imo is how Martin Smith knew Smithman wasn't Murat plain and understandably simple.
Martin Smiths additional statement in January 2008 clearly confirms the statement he made in May 2007 and also goes on further to state he was contacted by numerous tabloids looking for stories and Mr Brian Kennedy to take part in a photo fit exercise and Mr Smith categorically states HE HAS GIVEN NO STORIES or HELPED IN ANY PHOTO FITS.

Martin Smith further declares his statements to be TRUE to the BEST his knowledge and BELEIF and he understands he could be liable to prosecution if he states anything which he knows to be False or doesn't believe to be True.

Folks its all there in black and white in the Maddie case files and if Pat Brown and Goncalo Amaral have never doubted The Smiths sighting why cant all you Genuine Madeleine supporters accept likewise ??

by Chiaroscuro 06.11.13 6:58

I agree logical, I can see no reason why the Smiths should involve themselves in the whole imbroglio if not genuine.

by tracey1270 06.11.13 7:57

I personally have dismissed the Smithman sighting mainly due to the fact that I find it improbable that anyone would risk walking the streets with a dead or even sedated child as I doubt a child would stay sleeping, just seems a bit risky to me...unless the man and the child was a ruse, someone paid by the Mcann's to carry a child so as to create a more solid abduction theory? I still do not believe Madeleine died on the 3rd, I think she died on the 2nd and put in a wardrobe while the Mcann's and at least one of the party decided what to do. I doubt Gerry Mcann would take the risk of walking down the street with his dead child in his arms if he was discovered he would be in more trouble than admitting he left his children alone and a tragic accident happened. Either the Smithman sighting was just someone on the way home, or it was orchestrated previously and enacted by a friend or someone they paid to do it. I don't doubt that he saw someone, I just don't think it was Gerry Mcann.

by SixMillionQuid 06.11.13 7:58

soundworks wrote:I may be wrong here but when ive been in somebars you order drinks

so say maybe only 4 of them wanted a drink say at 8 euro then a receipt would be printed off

now say 10 mins later 2 kids wanted a drink say 5 euro then another receipt would be printed off and attached to first receipt

this can go on for another few drinks then you get your final bill adding them up but not supplying a final total reciept

in other bars they just give you a final receipt with all your drinks on

That's plausible but either way, whether its the final bill or ones in between, its going to have the time on it - the time on it will be the time the bill was generated by the cash register. Before I made the original post I recalled this 'bar receipt' being mentioned, and never thought much of it - I just assumed this receipt existed. It's only when go looking for it, or any reference to it, that it can't be be found. From Smith's statement they said they left left the bar around 9:50 or 9:55pm but no reference to a receipt as proof.

by soundworks 06.11.13 8:05

SixMillionQuid wrote:
soundworks wrote:I may be wrong here but when ive been in somebars you order drinks

so say maybe only 4 of them wanted a drink say at 8 euro then a receipt would be printed off

now say 10 mins later 2 kids wanted a drink say 5 euro then another receipt would be printed off and attached to first receipt

this can go on for another few drinks then you get your final bill adding them up but not supplying a final total reciept

in other bars they just give you a final receipt with all your drinks on
That's plausible but either way, whether its the final bill or ones in between, its going to have the time on it - the time on it will be the time the bill was generated by the cash register. Before I made the original post I recalled this 'bar receipt' being mentioned, and never thought much of it - I just assumed this receipt existed. It's only when go looking for it, or any reference to it, that it can't be be found. From Smith's statement they said they left left the bar around 9:50 or 9:55pm but no reference to a receipt as proof.

yea but say you had a drink that lasted you an hour

say receipt was printed at 8-50pm you then take an hour to drink - you call the waiter over ,ask how much you owe then pay , the waiter goes over to the boss who is at till - he then just puts the cash in the till and the receipts have been marked to say they have been paid or just put in a box where all other bills have been paid
you then leave

The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Log in for more topics