The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by 10:03 on 03.12.14 13:18

9.39 13.75 euros


Time paid for drinks. 20 minutes to drink and leave at around 10pm which connects to Aoife Smith's statement time. Smithman is seen a few minutes later which connects to another time. That time is in the files.

10:03

Posts : 14
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 03.12.14 13:21

But there are receipts for the time they say they were there:





They could have paid altogether when they arrived or maybe Peter Smith paid for his wife and children separately - we haven't enough information to conclude. But what is certain is that drinks were bought in that bar during the period - about half an hour or so, according to Aoife - between approximately 9.30 and 9.55. As they wouldn't have access to the Dolphin restaurant records (unless they kept their copy), their story would fit the facts.


As for nobody remembering them being there, I believe the PJ only asked one person, the barmaid on duty that night. Here's what the Files say:

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

"On this date at about 15.00 we went to Kelly's Bar, located in Rua da Calheta, in Praia da Luz. At the site we were received by an employee of the bar identified as L***** A**** M**** who had been on duty on the night of 3rd May 2007.


When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities."


Five months later - I'd say that was reasonable. I wouldn't be able to say with any accuracy whatsoever what happened in my place of work last month, never mind all that time later. 


Do you know of any others who were questioned about the presence of the Smiths that night, Tony? I could well have missed their testimonies.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by jeanmonroe on 03.12.14 13:42

DEE Coy:

WHICH one's of the 'orders' on the till receipt 'roll' are specifically 'related' to the Smith 'family'?

Do you know?

Don't matter if you don't. winkwink

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 03.12.14 13:46

@jeanmonroe wrote:DEE Coy:

WHICH one's of the 'orders' on the till receipt 'roll' are specifically 'related' to the Smith 'family'?

Do you know?

Don't matter if you don't. winkwink
No we don't know that, as I said we simply don't have the info as they're cash receipts.

What we do know is that drinks were purchased in the bar at the time the Smiths claim to be present. Which was the answer to Tony's point 3., above:

3. There is no receipt from Kelly's bar that matches the claim that they all went there and had a drink


There are indeed receipts that match the Smiths claim.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by jeanmonroe on 03.12.14 13:54

But Smith's definitely CANNOT be the 22H16 and 22H24 'entries' can they?

Right?

Cos the Smith's weren't THERE then, were they?

They 'left' Kellys at 21H55 (AS) didn't they?

They were 'going' back to their apartment. (seeing Smithman 'on their way')

That's right, isn't it?

istbc.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1663
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 03.12.14 14:11

@jeanmonroe wrote:But Smith's definitely CANNOT be the 22H16 and 22H24 'entries' can they?

Right?

Cos the Smith's weren't THERE then, were they?

They 'left' Kellys at 21H55 (AS) didn't they?

They were 'going' back to their apartment. (seeing Smithman 'on their way')

That's right, isn't it?

istbc.
Absolutely right, jean.

But they were there, according to them, at these times for these purchases:

21.39 - 13.75 eur

21.46 - 8.00 eur

21.49 - 8.00 eur

21.50 - 5.00 eur

So all of these receipts do match the Smiths' claims. They don't prove it's them, of course, but there are receipts that match their story.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by secrets and lies on 03.12.14 14:22

Since (presumably) not EVERYONE in Pria De Luz on that night is involved in this conspiracy, the only logical reason The Smith family would lie should be to either put Murat in the clear or exact revenge on his being framed. There is substantial evidence to suggest numerous people try to cast suspicion over Mr.Murat. 

But it begs the question. If Mr.Smith simply "met" Robert Murat several times (socially, one assumes) why on earth would he have his family lie to the police, to protect him? There would need to be a significant relationship there.

Either that or The Smiths are merely liars/attention seekers who left it a little late to jump on the bandwagon.

Or the final option-they all drink too much and their powers of observation/speed to remember what they had seen that night had diminished. If they knew Murat I think it's feasible to catagorically state that he wasn't him they saw-dark or not. That is something you would probably just know.

The sighting, though messily recalled, may indeed be genuine.

One of the the very few true stories in this case,
avatar
secrets and lies

Posts : 152
Reputation : 22
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 03.12.14 15:25

Because I think something went wrong with the McScam at the very last minute that night (hence the bodged time-lines and inconsistent witness statements from Tapas 9) I think it is possible that Smith-man was designed to land TM in it. (Whether he existed or not.) If the sighting was genuine (and I do agree that getting nine members of a family to lie might be difficult)  then I think it was someone staging an abduction that would frame Gerry McCann. That someone made sure they were seen, and not just by one person but by lots of people. 

If it was Gerry staging a faked abduction, why would he do it at 10pm? When TM concocted Tanner-man at 9.15pm?

TM came up with Tanner-man. Tanner-man was used, at least in part, to frame Robert Murat, I do believe.

Someone else came up with Smith-man. Smith-man was used to pin the spotlight on Gerry McCann, imo, as having something to do with the disappearance of his daughter. Which he most certainly did, imo.

A theory only.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 03.12.14 15:46

Would be interesting to know more about the Smith family and what vested interests they might have, if any.  I totally agree that it is very odd indeed that, if the sighting really happened, they did not go to the police earlier.

And the apparent explanation for what jogged their memories ('am I dreaming or did we see.......' does not ring true at all, imo).

 And a remarkable coincidence that they only went to the police after Murat had been made arguido. It also strikes me as very odd that it was only later still, after the McCanns returned to the UK in September, that Mr Smith's powers of recall improved to the extent that he was pretty sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann. Allegedly because of the way Gerry carried  Sean off the plane was so similar to the way that Smith-man was carrying the child that night. As others have noted, the way Gerry was carrying Sean off the plane was pretty much the only logical way you would carrying a sleeping child.

(This is partly why Tanner-man is such a strange curiosity. Why would Jane Tanner insist he was holding a girl in such an awkward manner? It makes no sense at all. A child - unless sedated - would wake up if carried like that.)

So, Mr Smith first goes to the police the day after Murat is made a suspect (and only just after the Tanner-man drawing was released) and tells them about his Smith-man sighting. And tells them he is sure it is not Robert Murat. This strikes me as such a coincidence!

Then, very soon after the McCanns flee Portugal and return to the UK, Mr Smith becomes 60%-80% sure that the man he saw is Gerry McCann. The timing of that also strikes me as an extraordinary coincidence. 

All very odd.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by worriedmum on 03.12.14 15:49

Personally I have always found the Smiths plausible and have no reason to think that they were anything other than honest.
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1842
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Guest on 03.12.14 16:09

@j.rob wrote:Would be interesting to know more about the Smith family and what vested interests they might have, if any.  
And this is the crux, imo. It would have to be a very large vested interest indeed for the Smiths to perjure themselves in this way.

Even if you could believe that Martin Smith could do this himself (and I don't), for me it is inconceivable for him to ask his son (a man with his own family and therefore much to lose) and even more so his 12 year old daughter to also lie.

What sort of obligation or vested interest could prompt such an enormous and compromising request of his children?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by worriedmum on 03.12.14 16:16

Dee Coy wrote:
@j.rob wrote:Would be interesting to know more about the Smith family and what vested interests they might have, if any.  
And this is the crux, imo. It would have to be a very large vested interest indeed for the Smiths to perjure themselves in this way.

Even if you could believe that Martin Smith could do this himself (and I don't), for me it is inconceivable for him to ask his son (a man with his own family and therefore much to lose) and even more so his 12 year old daughter to also lie.

What sort of obligation or vested interest could prompt such an enormous and compromising request of his children?
Exactly. The truth is often the simplest explanation. IMO they are straightforward people unfortunately caught up in a cause celebre.
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1842
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by woodforthetrees on 03.12.14 16:18

@secrets and lies wrote:Since (presumably) not EVERYONE in Pria De Luz on that night is involved in this conspiracy, the only logical reason The Smith family would lie should be to either put Murat in the clear or exact revenge on his being framed. There is substantial evidence to suggest numerous people try to cast suspicion over Mr.Murat. 

But it begs the question. If Mr.Smith simply "met" Robert Murat several times (socially, one assumes) why on earth would he have his family lie to the police, to protect him? There would need to be a significant relationship there.

Either that or The Smiths are merely liars/attention seekers who left it a little late to jump on the bandwagon.

Or the final option-they all drink too much and their powers of observation/speed to remember what they had seen that night had diminished. If they knew Murat I think it's feasible to catagorically state that he wasn't him they saw-dark or not. That is something you would probably just know.

The sighting, though messily recalled, may indeed be genuine.

One of the the very few true stories in this case,
agree

woodforthetrees

Posts : 270
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by plebgate on 03.12.14 16:24

I do not know whether anyone has lied or not but regarding whether people would ask their children to lie for them here is a link re. Jonathan Aitken libel trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/363478.stm

His daughter 17 at the time supported him and gave a signed statement in support of her father.   The libel trial collapsed and Aitken eventually did jail time.

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by worriedmum on 03.12.14 16:44

@plebgate wrote:I do not know whether anyone has lied or not but regarding whether people would ask their children to lie for them here is a link re. Jonathan Aitken libel trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/363478.stm

His daughter 17 at the time supported him and gave a signed statement in support of her father.   The libel trial collapsed and Aitken eventually did jail time.
 But Mr Smith is not a high profile politician bringing an action which requires him to ask family members to tell fibs, is he?

(Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...)!
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1842
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by plebgate on 03.12.14 17:07

Someone said on this or a different thread that they cannot see how a parent could ask any child to tell lies.   The link shows that one parent did exactly that, so not unheard of.

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 03.12.14 17:24

Dee Coy wrote:
@j.rob wrote:Would be interesting to know more about the Smith family and what vested interests they might have, if any.  
And this is the crux, imo. It would have to be a very large vested interest indeed for the Smiths to perjure themselves in this way.

Even if you could believe that Martin Smith could do this himself (and I don't), for me it is inconceivable for him to ask his son (a man with his own family and therefore much to lose) and even more so his 12 year old daughter to also lie.

What sort of obligation or vested interest could prompt such an enormous and compromising request of his children?

I agree that it is asking a lot to get your 12 year old daughter to lie. That is why I think it is possible that someone staged this to put Gerry in the frame. That still doesn't account for the family waiting so long to report the sighting, though.

To my mind, it doesn't make sense for this to have been Gerry carrying Madeleine or even a 'decoy' child (Amelie for instance), as some have suggested. The idea being that it is dark so that an eye-witness will not recognize Gerry but will simply think- after the alarm has been raised - that it could possibly have been Madeleine's 'abductor' removing her from the resort? That is just so risky. And why do it at 10pm when this conflicts with Tanner-man at 9.15pm? Why would 'the abductor' take so long doing his 'abducting'?

But why did the Smith family not approach police in the first instance? That just doesn't make sense. All NINE of them allegedly saw a man carrying a child of around Madeleine's age away from the OC resort and not ONE of them think to mention this to police for days and days? That is odd. 

Especially if it is true that Mrs Smith spoke to the man, asking if the child was asleep I do believe, but he ignored the question and looked down (which could be construed as being shifty and not wanting to be recognized). And the child appeared to be in a very deep sleep. I mean - come on! Surely one of them would have wanted to volunteer this 'sighting' to police given that the resort was swarming with police by Friday and there were posters everywhere?

I also think the account of how the family recalled the sighting is a bit weird. 'Was I dreaming or did I see.......', or words to the effect. Perhaps they all were dreaming??

I think if this really was Gerry carrying a child (whether Madeleine, Amelie or another 'decoy' child, even) then he was forced to take this very risky journey at the last minute when Kate discovered that the "the f****** bastards have taken her"  (who-ever her is, whether Madeleine/Madalene or another decoy child).

Pat Brown makes a very good point, imo on her site:

Which sighting is more likely to be Madeleine McCann? The Smith sighting, clearly, but the McCanns will have none of it unless it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. I repeat what I stated in mylast blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm.


Exactly. Why do the McCanns insist that Smith-man has to be Tanner-man despite the 45 minute gap between the sightings? If the McCanns had nothing at all to do with Smith-man (assuming he exists) then why not just allow for the fact that there are two independent sighting - Tanner-man (Jane Tanner's fabrication which has so little credence) and Smith-man - which could, possibly, be the same man - ie: Madeleine's abductor? But are more likely to be different men?

Either man could have been Madeleine's abductor. Both 'sightings' would reinforce the abduction theory. 

The fact that TM insist this was the same man, and was Madeleine's abductor, indicates to me that the Smith-man sighting is highly sensitive to them. And that would be a reason for the decidedly flimsy Tanner-man 'sighting'. It was invented at the last minute to provide a (terribly flimsy) cover for the Smith sighting.

In which case, Jane Tanner and TM invented Tanner-man on the spot in a massive panic, knowing that Gerry (or an accomplice who looked like him, for instance a male Tapas member) had been spotted by a large family. And in order to change the time-frame of the alleged abduction to be quite a bit earlier than the Smith sighting at 10pm. Again, as an attempt to distance 'the abduction' from the 10pm Smith sighting.

That could possibly also account for Tanner-man not having a face. And having hair that looks completely different to Smith-man's hair. And suggesting that Tanner-man did not look like a tourist.

Maybe Gerry really was caught red-handed by the Smiths?

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-smith.html

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by ultimaThule on 03.12.14 17:59

@worriedmum wrote:
@plebgate wrote:I do not know whether anyone has lied or not but regarding whether people would ask their children to lie for them here is a link re. Jonathan Aitken libel trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/363478.stm

His daughter 17 at the time supported him and gave a signed statement in support of her father.   The libel trial collapsed and Aitken eventually did jail time.
 But Mr Smith is not a high profile politician bringing an action which requires him to ask family members to tell fibs, is he?

(Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...)!

What you've said raises the question of how would it profit Mr Smith to lie in order to protect someone he barely knew, worriedmum?,

While there is no limit to what the unscrupulous will do, or prevail on others to do for them, and it's not uncommon for a child to lie, or be asked to lie, in support of its parent(s) and vice versa, nevertheless I find it hard to believe that Aoife Smith was asked, or volunteered, to lie in support of a mere acquaintance of her father who, together with those other members of his family who gave their accounts to the police, would appear to have nothing whatsoever to gain from lying to protect Murat. .
avatar
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 03.12.14 19:10

Back to my bodged hoax theory - again! Something like this. There is a pre-planned hoax to stage a faked abduction that week. Something goes wrong early on. *Something* very distressing indeed happens to Madeleine McCann. A child who looks like her and with the same name -Madalene R - is signed into the kids' club by Gerry several days (maybe even every day) that week. (The creche signatures are similar). This may or may not have always been in the plan (The Nylors and possibly Riders being friends of Jez might be a factor here. )


The hoax is supposed to happen at around 9.15pm (early witness reports of a commotion). Someone is supposed to have jemmied shutters open to support the idea that an abductor broke into Apartment 5A and stole Madeleine. Wind gets up during that week among guests and/or friends of the Tapas 9 that *something* has happened (to Madeleine). All is not as it seems and the abduction hoax is getting darker by the minute.

Someone/several people who were prepared to have gone along with a staged abduction of an alive and well Madeleine McCann (who will disappear for a time into the bosom of a large extended family while The Fund gains momentum and newspapers sell the sensational story) decides they do not want to be part of what is now looking more like an abduction staged to cover up a death/killing/murder/fatal abuse.

At the eleventh hour, the McCanns are dropped right in it. "The f****** bastards have taken her" and the plan is in disarray. Whoever was going to stage the abduction at 9.15pm has pulled out. Leaving TM running around like headless chickens. 

Maybe Jez at 9.15pm was supposed to have had some kind of role in the script? Taking Madeleine away maybe (that pram is just so handy). While 'the abductor' (an accomplice of TM) walks away carrying a Madeleine look-alike (Madalene R).  Thus supporting the 'abduction' theory. It's dark so any eye-witnesses will not be able to positively identify 'the abductor' but will notice him carrying a child that looks a similar size and age to Madeleine McCann.

When this fails to happen, TM are left in the worst possible position. They have a sick/ill/dying/abused/dead Madeleine. No one is prepared to take her away and become a key suspect in what could become a murder inquiry. But Madeleine must be removed. The alarm was already raised at 9.15pm and they can't put off calling the police forever.

Gerry or a Tapas male or another friend who played some part in the terrible thing that happened to Madeleine is forced into the very risky position of carrying Madeleine away from the resort at around 10pm. (This could also have been someone carrying Madeleine to the medical center of course, in which case it might NOT have been GM or a Tapas but someone who had got wind of what was going on and was trying to, quite literally, save her life which again would be a sighting that TM would wish to deny.)

The Smith family spot this person carrying Madeleine at around 10pm. TM hear that this person (who looks a bit like Gerry) has been spotted by a family of nine. It is disastrous news. In desperation they conjure up Tanner-man in an attempt to shoe-horn 'the disaster' into the old script which is now in tatters. This places 'the abduction ' at the time it was supposed to have happened. And it distances 'the abduction' both in terms of time and place from who-ever the Smiths saw at 10pm. The early Tanner-man e-fit is also dissimilar, imo, to the Smith-man efits. Much darker hair which is long at the back. A more 'continental' appearance with very dark skin. And no facial features.

What a bodge up, imo. But the show had to go on.

I think that if the sniffer dogs hadn't been sent in during the summer they might have got away with it! Madeleine either died in the apartment that week prior to the alleged 'abduction' or she actually died outside the apartment but her body was brought back inside some time prior to being removed in the Renault Scenic. The McCanns thought they had got away with it and never expected sniffer dogs to be brought in to OC.

A theory only.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

J Rob's theory...

Post by missbeetle on 03.12.14 19:23

What a theory is it, J.Rob! It's a cracker -

- well done you for spelling it out so clearly.

It's the most plausible theory I've read on here yet.

Excellent work.

____________________
'Tis strange, but true; for truth is always strange...
(from Lord Byron's 'Don Juan', 1823)
avatar
missbeetle

Posts : 985
Reputation : 20
Join date : 2014-02-28
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by j.rob on 03.12.14 20:44

@missbeetle wrote:What a theory is it, J.Rob! It's a cracker -

- well done you for spelling it out so clearly.

It's the most plausible theory I've read on here yet.

Excellent work.

Thanks! I am quite excited by it as it does seem to join up some dots and pull together some hard work that other people have put into this case (the creche signatures, for instance, Smith-man and so on.)

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by phil_burton on 03.12.14 21:00

Hmm, I've read JRobs theory, and I'm sorry but that's just too elaborate. If a gang of people wanted to commit this kind of crime, they would not have so many uncontrollable variables, so many people, so many potential witnesses, an unknown police force. If the idea was to stage an abduction, there are easier ways.

As for Smithman, having read everyone's opinions, I am of the opinion it is a genuine sighting.

Tonys points can mostly be explained away I believe, they could genuinely have not remembered. And as for TM using Smithman - it makes perfect sense to me. They have picked which "evidence" they agree with and promoted it, they can rubbish the dogs, they can plead ignorance with regards to deleted phone records, inconsistencies and other evidence almost as if it doesn't exist.

BUT if they take some of the official evidence and promote it, it kind of gives them some credibility.

For example, if you're having an argument with a colleague over something at work, you might disagree with everything they say, but if you agree with one thing they say, it makes it look like you're not just disagreeing blindly.

And it just so happens that Smithman is one that cannot be directly attributed to either Kate or Gerry (it was dark, they couldn't positively ID the man etc), it neatly supports the abduction theory, and at the same time might just have implicated Murat a little more - triple bubble.

Personally I believe Smithman is genuine and what they saw was MM being carried away. The timing fits, the location fits, it's suspicious (how many parents would be transporting their daughter on their own by foot late at night? It just doesn't make sense)

I just don't see what motivation the Smiths would have to lie. If it was an attempt to shit focus it would have been more clearly a lie, there would have been too much odd detail (like in the KM GM DP statements), when in actual fact the Smiths statement is quite vague and in isolation no much use.

phil_burton

Posts : 83
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by XTC on 03.12.14 22:44

@jeanmonroe wrote:DEE Coy:

WHICH one's of the 'orders' on the till receipt 'roll' are specifically 'related' to the Smith 'family'?

Do you know?

Don't matter if you don't. winkwink
Are these actual receipts kept by customers?

Or is this the till roll from the bar?

Going off the till receipt numbers continuously there is a gap between 20.52pm ( 000055)
and 21.39pm ( 000056 ) the next arrives at 21.46 (000057)  7 seconds later.

Was no one in the bar for 47 minutes?

Curious.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by aquila on 03.12.14 22:53

@XTC wrote:
@jeanmonroe wrote:DEE Coy:

WHICH one's of the 'orders' on the till receipt 'roll' are specifically 'related' to the Smith 'family'?

Do you know?

Don't matter if you don't. winkwink
Are these actual receipts kept by customers?

Or is this the till roll from the bar?

Going off the till receipt numbers continuously there is a gap between 20.52pm ( 000055)
and 21.39pm ( 000056 ) the next arrives at 21.46 (000057)  7 seconds later.

Was no one in the bar for 47 minutes?

Curious.
I don't understand it either. I lived in Greece. It was normal to have a shot glass on the table in which the till receipts were placed when the waiter brought your drinks until you paid your bar bill...there were also bars that didn't do this and had that old 'stick your hand under the till to release the drawer'. Such bars had CCTV focused on the till. It wouldn't surprise me - no it doesn't surprise me - that the CCTV for the bar went conveniently missing but actually for no other reason than potentially dodgy bar owners who didn't want to show what they were doing.

Just my opinion.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8704
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Smithman - A Question by phil_burton

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 03.12.14 22:59

I don't see the times of the bar bill as that weird as it was midweek in April in a quiet resort - but if the receipts allegedly pertain to the Smiths it is a bit odd. It's been mentioned elsewhere at some point as though it looks like they didn't buy a round of drinks all together which isn't normal, if indeed they were ever in that bar.

____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum