Re: Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant'

by pennylane 14.04.17 23:50

joyce1938 wrote:I recall that the scent that was around the cupboard ,in that area didn't mean that it was in cupboard.The chap made it clear that the smell gathers towards one area ,but the blue bag ,may not have been used,for disposal. joyce1938

Absolutely, I recall that too! Martin Grime made it clear that the source can be from elsewhere in the room, and the air movement can push it (say) into the corner where the dog gave a bark indication.

-------

Added by a Mod: The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

'SuspiciousMinds' made the following comment, which 'JohnyT' described as a 'fair point':

QUOTE: "Yeah, it's so much more bonkers than the whole died-on-Sunday, covered-it-up-for-a-week, faked-photos, faked-creche-records, got-everyone-onside-including-the-nannies, planned-everything-to-a-tee-and-then-screwed-it-all-up-on-the-night story. That's soooo much more believable..."

I wonder of either or both of them can help us with these matters:

1. Do you think the Last Photo was really taken on Thursday 3 May?
2. Do you rule out the date stamp having been changed?
3. Do you think Cat Baker told the truth about the Thursday 'high tea'?
4. Do you think Charlotte Pennington told the truth about the Thursday 'high tea'?
5. Do you think Cat Baker told the truth about the sailing on Thursday?
6. Who do you think took the Tennis Balls Photo, and on which day?
7. Where is the independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday?
8. What photographs of Madeleine, if any, can you say with certainty were taken after the Sunday?
9. Do you deny any material alterations to the crèche records?
10. When is your best estimate of the date when Nuno Lourenco took a photo of Wojchiech Krokowski's hired car? - and finally...
11. Do you accept the evidence produced by Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts that the McCanns held up Madeleine's actual pyjamas at two press calls on 5 and 7 June (see the opening to Richard Hall's latest film)?

Thanks in advance for any answers - Mod

by Phoebe 15.04.17 1:07

I'm trying not to be gruesome here so I'll do the best I can. Dr. Amaral thought along the lines of refrigeration because Keela alerted to blood in the hire car but dead bodies don't bleed. Fair enough, there might have been blood on the corpse but I would have expected them to wash it or at least wipe it away before stowing the body somewhere, especially if there was time for planning. Dr Amaral is of the opinion that burial in that climate and soil type would have lead to mummification, so any external blood not cleaned up would have dried and been unlikely to transfer. Could it have been purge fluid (which often contains some blood) that Keela found? If so that might mean no freezer required, just nerves of steel. Apologies for such a macabre post.

by suzyjohnson 15.04.17 2:55

Phoebe wrote:I'm trying not to be gruesome here so I'll do the best I can. Dr. Amaral thought along the lines of refrigeration because Keela alerted to blood in the hire car but dead bodies don't bleed. Fair enough, there might have been blood on the corpse but I would have expected them to wash it or at least wipe it away before stowing the body somewhere, especially if there was time for planning. Dr Amaral is of the opinion that burial in that climate and soil type would have lead to mummification, so any external blood not cleaned up would have dried and been unlikely to transfer. Could it have been purge fluid (which often contains some blood) that Keela found? If so that might mean no freezer required, just nerves of steel. Apologies for such a macabre post.

Possibly Phoebe. I don't know too much about it, I was just trying to think how Amaral's ideas about freezing could have occurred.

by suzyjohnson 15.04.17 3:20

1. Do you think the Last Photo was really taken on Thursday 3 May?

A. Yes, probably

2. Do you rule out the date stamp having been changed?

A. No

3. Do you think Cat Baker told the truth about the Thursday 'high tea'?

A. Yes, probably

4. Do you think Charlotte Pennington told the truth about the Thursday 'high tea'?

A. Yes probably

5. Do you think Cat Baker told the truth about the sailing on Thursday?

A. Yes

6. Who do you think took the Tennis Balls Photo, and on which day?

A. I always thought it was possible that two photographs were taken on that day (hence the confusion) one by Kate, who ran back to get her camera, the other by, I think, Jane. And I think it was Tuesday.

7. Where is the independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday?

A. Apart from Ocean Club staff you mean? The nannies who saw her at the creche and and high tea or the cleaner who said she saw her going up the stairs one day. And the rest of the tapas group (not necessarily independent but they might not have all been involved) I don't know if there were other witnesses, but then why would there be? She spent most of the holiday either with the group or in the creche.

8. What photographs of Madeleine, if any, can you say with certainty were taken after the Sunday?

A. I can't, perhaps there were none.

9. Do you deny any material alterations to the crèche records?

A. There could be a few reasons for altering creche records, I doubt that any of them mean very much.

10. When is your best estimate of the date when Nuno Lourenco took a photo of Wojchiech Krokowski's hired car? - and finally...

A. I don't know, I have only recently started watching Hall's videos. I have been trying to think whether it is possible that he could have heard of Jane Tanner's description of Tannerman via a McCann source. And wondering if Lourenco has put two and two together and made five.

11. Do you accept the evidence produced by Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts that the McCanns held up Madeleine's actual pyjamas at two press calls on 5 and 7 June (see the opening to Richard Hall's latest film)?

A. So far, I am under the impression that Amelie's (or at least a spare set of Madeleine's) pyjamas were held up at press conference.

I think that you will be able to tell from my answers that I think that if the McCanns were in any way responsible for their daughter's disappearance, that the solution to the case is likely to be as uncomplicated, with as few people involved, as possible. I think most of the evidence can be taken at face value.

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 8:21

SuspiciousMinds wrote:
SuspiciousMinds wrote:A Mod writes: I am sorry, but are members and guests here expected to take your post seriously?

According to what you've written:

...David Payne really did see Madeleine alive between 6.30pm and 7.00pm
...Madeleine died after that (you don't say if Sean & Amelie were there when she 'died')
...the McCanns then covered this up from their friends for the entire evening, leaving a dead body in the flat along with Sean and Amelie
...their friends only discovered this near to 10.00pm
...Gerry McCann then dashed off carrying his daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz (and managed to find a secure hiding place as well)
...he was seen by the Smiths and therefore they changed the time of the alarm to 10.00pm
...Jane Tanner makes up the description of an abductor which happens to be precisely the same as one given the next day by Nuno Lourenco of Wojchiech Krokowski...???

None of this matches what the facts are. Indeed, it is wholly at variance with them.

Posts are not normally removed for sheer absurdity, but this one comes very close. It certainly wins first prize for the daftest suggestion yet to fit in with the belief that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann - Mod

Yeah, it's so much more bonkers than the whole died-on-Sunday, covered-it-up-for-a-week, faked-photos, faked-creche-records, got-everyone-onside-including-the-nannies, planned-everything-to-a-tee-and-then-screwed-it-all-up-on-the-night story. That's soooo much more believable...

Sorry, but I found that very funny!

But out of the 12 people who have voted in the Poll that they believe Smithman is Gerry and is key to solving the mystery, only a couple of people have put forward their theories.

Where are the rest?

I'm still none the wiser about how Gerry could have been walking towards the beach with his dead daughter at the same time as Kate was raising the alarm.

Here's the Crimewatch Special again where DCI Andy Redwood rules out Tannerman and focuses on Smithman.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/did-madeleine-mccann-die-on-sunday-29th.html

by Lord Sleuth 15.04.17 9:02

On another thread I suggested the possibility that the e-fits were subconscious memories of two people instead of one and on the Sunday evening/Monday morning and not the Thursday.
Well, I have another theory which I guess will be just as implausible to many, but could make perfect sense to me.
When it comes to Governments and people trying to cover their backs in general I will usually take a devious explanation over a simple one.
So, with that in mind, what if..... the e-fits are not sightings at all, but e-fits based on the actual photographs of the two people who I believe are involved and released as a warning?
It would not be enough to directly pinpoint them as the culprits ,especially as in 2013 or so, any alleged involvement in such activities was not generally known. That only came about late last year. But however it would be enough in my view to drum the point home.
If I was either of the two the message would be very clear indeed.

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 9:32

What do the 'Gerry/Smithman' believers think happened to Maddie from the time she was last seen on Thursday to the time Gerry was seen walking towards the beach with her dead body? And what happened next?

by Carrry On Doctor 15.04.17 10:03

Get'emGonçalo wrote:What do the 'Gerry/Smithman' believers think happened to Maddie from the time she was last seen on Thursday to the time Gerry was seen walking towards the beach with her dead body? And what happened next?

GEG, am slightly confused, your question seems only directed to Smithman believers with the following caveats;

1. Maddie dieing on Thursday
2. Smithman was carrying a dead Middie when he was seen

Are you trying to drill down on only one scenario or is the floor open to other views ?

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 10:23

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:What do the 'Gerry/Smithman' believers think happened to Maddie from the time she was last seen on Thursday to the time Gerry was seen walking towards the beach with her dead body? And what happened next?

GEG, am slightly confused, your question seems only directed to Smithman believers with the following caveats;

1. Maddie dieing on Thursday
2. Smithman was carrying a dead Middie when he was seen

Are you trying to drill down on only one scenario or is the floor open to other views ?

No, I'm not trying to "drill down on only one scenario" that's why I've asked for opposing views.

Pat has opened the way for further debate from her article where she says Smithman is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery. Pat also believes Maddie died on the Thursday. I know many people also agree with her, probably more than the 12 who have so far voted.

So that's what this thread is about. In the Poll, people are asked if they believe Pat's theory or if they believe Richard's theory.

Tony brought the article here, and devised the Poll, so it's only fair that people have their say.

If you don't agree with the caveats that I've suggested, then please feel free to add/delete!

If we'd wanted to "drill down on only one scenario" then Tony wouldn't have brought the article here nor created the Poll.

So far 12 people have voted with Pat, and all I'm asking is what they think happened to Maddie from the last time she was seen to Gerry walking towards the beach with a dead Maddie (or JT's daughter) and what happened after that? How did he get back with JT's daughter without being seen?

If you believe that, then surely you must have a good idea why?

by Guest 15.04.17 10:24

Most of these questions/answers have already been covered in the other 9 Smithman threads started by TB and also touched on in various others. Pat Brown thinks the sighting is important big deal so do plenty others but this thread is just replicating the same old arguments without adding much/any value. Read the other 9 most folks thoughts and theories have been pretty much covered withouts the need to generate more on the same subject. Apologies rant over. smilie

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 10:40

HKP wrote:Most of these questions/answers have already been covered in the other 9 Smithman threads started by TB and also touched on in various others. Pat Brown thinks the sighting is important big deal so do plenty others but this thread is just replicating the same old arguments without adding much/any value. Read the other 9 most folks thoughts and theories have been pretty much covered withouts the need to generate more on the same subject. Apologies rant over.

True, but there are a lot of new people who haven't read the other Smithman threads who might want to hear theories of how Gerry is Smithman walking towards the beach with his dead daughter, without wading through reams of old posts.

I didn't start this thread, Tony did - what am I supposed to do, lock it and say no further discussion allowed?
If you don't want to participate in this thread there's plenty of others! winkwink

by pennylane 15.04.17 10:47

HKP wrote:Most of these questions/answers have already been covered in the other 9 Smithman threads started by TB and also touched on in various others. Pat Brown thinks the sighting is important big deal so do plenty others but this thread is just replicating the same old arguments without adding much/any value. Read the other 9 most folks thoughts and theories have been pretty much covered withouts the need to generate more on the same subject. Apologies rant over.

I do agree that it's good to go back and read the interesting debates by members past and present, on the other 9 Smithman threads. thumbup

by Guest 15.04.17 10:49

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HKP wrote:Most of these questions/answers have already been covered in the other 9 Smithman threads started by TB and also touched on in various others. Pat Brown thinks the sighting is important big deal so do plenty others but this thread is just replicating the same old arguments without adding much/any value. Read the other 9 most folks thoughts and theories have been pretty much covered withouts the need to generate more on the same subject. Apologies rant over.
True, but there are a lot of new people who haven't read the other Smithman threads who might want to hear theories of how Gerry is Smithman walking towards the beach with his dead daughter, without wading through reams of old posts.

I didn't start this thread, Tony did - what am I supposed to do, lock it and say no further discussion allowed?
If you don't want to participate in this thread there's plenty of others!

No problem GeG it's just a thread which has extensively been covered before and a bit of reading / research should be encouraged. Thanks.

by Phoebe 15.04.17 11:49

A possible scenario - the tapas group go out for the night some day before May 3rd. One stays behind to check if any of the children are awake and crying. The checking is casual, just a quick listen at each door for sounds of yelling their heads off, as Rachel charmingly explained. Madeleine, perhaps with some sleeping aid, comes to grief behind the sofa and this goes unnoticed. Gerry and Kate return home late with a fair bit of alcohol on board, as was admitted to re. the Wed. night. All is quiet so they go to bed without checking. In the morning they find Madeleine behind the sofa, say at 7.30 to 8am. She has been dead for 12 hours and this will show at autopsy. A nasty injury which may not have been fatal if caught in time, sedatives in her system, perhaps not recommended for under 6s and evidence of a cavalier attitude to child-safety are all evident. The friend doing the minding is also guilty of being less than cautious. This would see them branded as drunken, unfit parents and be reputationally damaging,and, as they have since proved, they care a lot about their reputations. If there were any delay while they decided what to do that would increase the time since death. How does one explain a sedated, injured child dead for perhaps fourteen hours before the authorities are called?

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 12:05

Lord Sleuth wrote:On another thread I suggested the possibility that the e-fits were subconscious memories of two people instead of one and on the Sunday evening/Monday morning and not the Thursday.
Well, I have another theory which I guess will be just as implausible to many, but could make perfect sense to me.
When it comes to Governments and people trying to cover their backs in general I will usually take a devious explanation over a simple one.
So, with that in mind, what if..... the e-fits are not sightings at all, but e-fits based on the actual photographs of the two people who I believe are involved and released as a warning?
It would not be enough to directly pinpoint them as the culprits ,especially as in 2013 or so, any alleged involvement in such activities was not generally known. That only came about late last year. But however it would be enough in my view to drum the point home.
If I was either of the two the message would be very clear indeed.

@ Lord Sleuth Thank you very much for reviving the suggestion (bolded bit above) I made a long time ago that these two e-fits were derived NOT from the Smiths at all, but from two photographs of different males.

There's not been enough discussion about the efits themselves

It was agreed on here a long time ago by experts in photography and digital graphics etc. that the images were probably derived from actual photographs. Moreover, these experts noted that the 'grain' of the two efits was different, suggesting that different computer programs had been used for the two different images.

The idea that the Smiths could have prouced these efits is far-fetched in the extreme.

How could they possibly remember facial details a year or more after they had only seen a bloke for a few seconds in the dark and said they'd never be able to recognise him if they saw him again?

Why on earth did they produce two quite different efits, with many obvious differnces between the two faces?

Yes, I am certain that photographs of two other people were used to create those two efits, and I think it very likely, as you suggest, that they are somehow connected with this enduing mysyery..

Indeed, two of us in the Admin team believe we know the identity of one of the two males. An affidavit has been drafted some time ago identifying the male. I cannot publish his name on here for legal reasons, and that affidavit has not been used in any proceedings yet because we are still trying to determine the identity of the other male.

NOTE: If anyone here has any technical knowledge about creating efit images using photographs, or modified photographs, please share - thanks

by Lord Sleuth 15.04.17 12:15

@ Tony Bennett

I never knew you had already come up with that theory but an old saying comes to mind.
Unfortunately it doesnt apply in my case as I`m only Mr Average

by Verdi 15.04.17 12:42

HKP wrote:Most of these questions/answers have already been covered in the other 9 Smithman threads started by TB and also touched on in various others. Pat Brown thinks the sighting is important big deal so do plenty others but this thread is just replicating the same old arguments without adding much/any value. Read the other 9 most folks thoughts and theories have been pretty much covered withouts the need to generate more on the same subject. Apologies rant over.

This may be true but when you read some of the crazy theories presented over and over again - they need to be debunked over and over again otherwise they take a foothold, as internet histrionics can confirm.

by plebgate 15.04.17 13:08

thre

Lord Sleuth wrote:@ Tony Bennett

I never knew you had already come up with that theory but an old saying comes to mind.
Unfortunately it doesnt apply in my case as I`m only Mr Average

Info. for any interested newbies. Look up the Smithman thread, very interesting and as yet nobody as been able to answer the questions Tony B has asked.

Sorry - just seen HKP's post above.

by JRP 15.04.17 15:05

Some of the theories surrounding the Smithman sighting stem from some people believing everything they are told.

Jane Tanner sees a man carrying a child, and what she says and describes is believed by some. Then, as the description changes, some still believe her sighting is true.
The Smiths see a man carrying a child, and again people believe this sighting is true. Again, the description of Smithman changes, yet people still continue to believe the story.

We have a situation where some say, a 12 year old Smith witness must be believed because of her young age.
In the case of the creche sheet fiasco, some say Cat Baker must be believed because she was only 20.
Pamela Fenn must be believed, say some, because she was 70+ years old.

I'm not saying any one or all of the above people told lies, but there must be some age, older than 20 and less than 70, when a person becomes less credible. You lose all credibility after 20, and get it back again around 69. Awwww bless!

I still don't understand why Gerry McCann would feel the need to have to place Madeleine as being alive and well at that time on Thursday night, by risking carrying her, or, carrying a borrowed child around the streets to be seen by everyone he passed.
Strangely, no locals spotted him, in this friendly resort where locals say goodnight to tourists, so up-thread tells us, the only single sighting was from a man who knew (however vaguely) Robert Murat. Is that co-incidence?
This case is full of co-incidences, and they don't ring true.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 18:47

suzyjohnson wrote:1. Do you think the Last Photo was really taken on Thursday 3 May?

A. Yes, probably

2. Do you rule out the date stamp having been changed?

A. No

3. Do you think Cat Baker told the truth about the Thursday 'high tea'?

A. Yes, probably

4. Do you think Charlotte Pennington told the truth about the Thursday 'high tea'?

A. Yes probably

5. Do you think Cat Baker told the truth about the sailing on Thursday?

A. Yes

6. Who do you think took the Tennis Balls Photo, and on which day?

A. I always thought it was possible that two photographs were taken on that day (hence the confusion) one by Kate, who ran back to get her camera, the other by, I think, Jane. And I think it was Tuesday.

7. Where is the independent evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sunday?

A. Apart from Ocean Club staff you mean? The nannies who saw her at the creche and at high tea or the cleaner who said she saw her going up the stairs one day. And the rest of the tapas group (not necessarily independent but they might not have all been involved) I don't know if there were other witnesses, but then why would there be? She spent most of the holiday either with the group or in the creche.

8. What photographs of Madeleine, if any, can you say with certainty were taken after the Sunday?

A. I can't, perhaps there were none.

9. Do you deny any material alterations to the crèche records?

A. There could be a few reasons for altering creche records, I doubt that any of them mean very much.

10. When is your best estimate of the date when Nuno Lourenco took a photo of Wojchiech Krokowski's hired car? - and finally...

A. I don't know, I have only recently started watching Hall's videos. I have been trying to think whether it is possible that he could have heard of Jane Tanner's description of Tannerman via a McCann source. And wondering if Lourenco has put two and two together and made five.

11. Do you accept the evidence produced by Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts that the McCanns held up Madeleine's actual pyjamas at two press calls on 5 and 7 June (see the opening to Richard Hall's latest film)?

A. So far, I am under the impression that Amelie's (or at least a spare set of Madeleine's) pyjamas were held up at press conference.

I think that you will be able to tell from my answers that I think that if the McCanns were in any way responsible for their daughter's disappearance, that the solution to the case is likely to be as uncomplicated, with as few people involved, as possible. I think most of the evidence can be taken at face value.

@ suzyjohnson Thank you very much for a prompt, clear and full reply. It's always helpful if people are willing to explain their position and set out their reasons for holding it, even though in this particular case it has mainly served to highlight areas of disagreement rather than agreement.

Obviously, when you wrote this: "...if the McCanns were in any way responsible for their daughter's disappearance", you were indicating a very substantial difference of opinion from most of the members here.

On the point (No. 11) of whether the McCanns were holding up Amelie's jammies or Maddie's jammies on the Crimewatch programme of 5/6/07 and in the Holland press call of 7/6/07, I have written further about this on the new 'SMITHMAN 10' thread:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13927-smithman-10-is-this-absolute-100-proof-that-the-smiths-did-not-see-gerry-mccann-carrying-away-madeleine-at-around-10pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007#363518

But I'm not expecting us to agree on that.

Basically l'm only in agreement with your answer to Question 2. But thanks again for your frank answers.

by Liz Eagles 15.04.17 19:09

JRP wrote:Some of the theories surrounding the Smithman sighting stem from some people believing everything they are told.

Jane Tanner sees a man carrying a child, and what she says and describes is believed by some. Then, as the description changes, some still believe her sighting is true.
The Smiths see a man carrying a child, and again people believe this sighting is true. Again, the description of Smithman changes, yet people still continue to believe the story.

We have a situation where some say, a 12 year old Smith witness must be believed because of her young age.
In the case of the creche sheet fiasco, some say Cat Baker must be believed because she was only 20.
Pamela Fenn must be believed, say some, because she was 70+ years old.

I'm not saying any one or all of the above people told lies, but there must be some age, older than 20 and less than 70, when a person becomes less credible. You lose all credibility after 20, and get it back again around 69. Awwww bless!

I still don't understand why Gerry McCann would feel the need to have to place Madeleine as being alive and well at that time on Thursday night, by risking carrying her, or, carrying a borrowed child around the streets to be seen by everyone he passed.
Strangely, no locals spotted him, in this friendly resort where locals say goodnight to tourists, so up-thread tells us, the only single sighting was from a man who knew (however vaguely) Robert Murat. Is that co-incidence?
This case is full of co-incidences, and they don't ring true.

A brilliant observation there JRP.

by plebgate 15.04.17 19:38

IMO not really that brilliant an answer from JRP as quite a few posters had a rather lengthy discussion on one of the threads on why we thought it possible that Mrs. Fenn was telling the truth and it certainly wasn't because she was aged 70 plus.

by Verdi 15.04.17 23:43

Lest they forget, another candidate for the rogues gallery - or should I say e-fits of suspected abductors - Gail Cooperman. Doesn't look like a tourist, remove the facial fuzz and get him to walk in the other direction and you could be looking at another Tannerman/Smithman..

Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant' - Page 6 Walking_1457592i

Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant' - Page 6 Walking_1457592i

by SuspiciousMinds 16.04.17 11:03

pennylane wrote:Added by a Mod: The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

Suzy already answered all the other points in this post very eloquently, so I won't answer those again. But I will take issue with the statement above.

1. If people contributing to the thread are continually asked to state why they think that the Smith sighting may be genuine and relevant, then they are going to tell you why they think the Smith sighting may be genuine and relevant. There is a possibility that those thoughts may not concur with your own. Shocking, I know, but true.

2. The Smith sighting is not the "basis" of any of the 'May 3' theories. The fact (yes, fact!) that Mr. Smith claimed to see someone and later thought it might have been Gerry is an interesting sideshow, that tends to support the theory that the McCanns were involved. If it was Gerry, it's huge. If it wasn't Gerry, then shrug. So what? The 'May 3' theory does not get blown out of the water because of that and there is no need to 'fixate' on it. Neither is there any need to jump on it and assume that Mr. Smith had a more nefarious purpose for making his statement.

3. The piece of evidence you really, really need to get past is the statements from the nannies that say Madeleine was alive on May 3rd. That is the true sticking point. The 'alleged, unproven fact' that the nannies were lying on behalf of the McCanns is a whopper - and it actually DOES blow the 'Died-on-Sunday' theory out of the water. You cannot criticise people for incorporating one witness statement into their theories, while blindly ignoring or trashing inconvenient statements that don't fit your own.

4. I know I am in a minority on this site. I don't contribute very often, as I don't really enjoy getting jumped on from all sides and pummelled into submission, and I don't have time to sit here and answer every angry and aggressive response. I don't know what happened to Madeleine. But neither do you. None of us believe the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing - we are all intelligent enough to look beyond what we have been fed by the media. That is something that should be respected - especially by a so-called Mod.

by pennylane 16.04.17 12:11

SuspiciousMinds wrote:
Added by a Mod: The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

Suzy already answered all the other points in this post very eloquently, so I won't answer those again. But I will take issue with the statement above.

1. If people contributing to the thread are continually asked to state why they think that the Smith sighting may be genuine and relevant, then they are going to tell you why they think the Smith sighting may be genuine and relevant. There is a possibility that those thoughts may not concur with your own. Shocking, I know, but true.

2. The Smith sighting is not the "basis" of any of the 'May 3' theories. The fact (yes, fact!) that Mr. Smith claimed to see someone and later thought it might have been Gerry is an interesting sideshow, that tends to support the theory that the McCanns were involved. If it was Gerry, it's huge. If it wasn't Gerry, then shrug. So what? The 'May 3' theory does not get blown out of the water because of that and there is no need to 'fixate' on it. Neither is there any need to jump on it and assume that Mr. Smith had a more nefarious purpose for making his statement.

3. The piece of evidence you really, really need to get past is the statements from the nannies that say Madeleine was alive on May 3rd. That is the true sticking point. The 'alleged, unproven fact' that the nannies were lying on behalf of the McCanns is a whopper - and it actually DOES blow the 'Died-on-Sunday' theory out of the water. You cannot criticise people for incorporating one witness statement into their theories, while blindly ignoring or trashing inconvenient statements that don't fit your own.

4. I know I am in a minority on this site. I don't contribute very often, as I don't really enjoy getting jumped on from all sides and pummelled into submission, and I don't have time to sit here and answer every angry and aggressive response. I don't know what happened to Madeleine. But neither do you. None of us believe the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing - we are all intelligent enough to look beyond what we have been fed by the media. That is something that should be respected - especially by a so-called Mod.

Spot on SM! roses

Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant'

Pat Brown or Rchard Hall