Re: The Theory that Smithman = Gerry McCann – CAREFULLY EXPLAINED

by Carrry On Doctor 25.09.18 13:20

Voted 1 as this was the closest option to my thoughts, which are that Smithman is real and was most likely GM carrying a decoy child. My reasoning;

1. I cannot, under any circumstance, envisage the Smiths embroiling their children and grandchildren into giving false statements to the police with a view to committing perjury.

2. I find the Smith family statements and explanations of events as generally plausible.

3. As with many on CMOMM, I firmly believe that MBM died much earlier in the week and the evening of the 3rd was planned. As sighting(s) would have been necessary, Smithman was likely needed to provide additional corroboration to Tannerman.

4 GM was identified by the Smiths as the man carrying the child.

5. GM's movements around the time of the Smithman sighting cannot be accounted for.

6. The risk in carrying a genuinely dead child around would have been ruled out as too risky. MBM had to be disposed of beforehand, so Smithman would require to carry a decoy child.

Regarding who the decoy child would be, the superb article by Dr Martin Roberts 'A Nightware Job' outlines how MBMs pyjamas were presented as Amelies. When planning the faked abduction, this would have been an important detail for a sighting. In addition, the twins slept right through the chaos of the evening of the 3rd, suggesting they were drugged. Amelies appearance and drowsy state would have been the perfect fit.

by **Jill Havern** 25.09.18 13:22

So, according to Martin Smith he said "it is common to see people carrying children, especially in the holiday season".

I wonder what made this whole family take notice of such details of this particular man and child, noticing the colour of his hair and that it was short at the top and longer at the back; that he was light-skinned and clean-shaven and didn't have any designer stubble; that he wasn't wearing glasses; what colour his trousers were and that they had buttons; what age range he was in; what the child was wearing; what age range she was in; the colour of her hair; her pale complexion; what sort of pyjamas she was wearing and if she was barefoot or not...

Not only that, but they must have then turned round to watch this man and child from the back if they could see the child's eyes were closed.

I wonder if the family could describe all the other people carrying children around Praia da Luz in such fine detail?

I've just had a never-met-before female visitor who stayed for nearly an hour, but if I was to describe her now all I could say is that she was overweight; shorter than me; possibly in her 40s; wore a patterned blouse and black trousers; had shoulder length blonde hair; very thick foundation and a mascara smudge under her right eyebrow big grin

In a few weeks time I'll try to think if I can remember more...

OK, so I was only one person and not a whole family where other members might be able to describe something else. But then, why were all the Smith's taking such detailed notice in passing of this one particular man and child, even to the point of asking if the child was asleep? What did she expect the answer to be? "No, she's drugged/dead of course."

by **Jill Havern** 25.09.18 14:10

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just want to say thank you for continuing to add your counter-argument to the Smithman threads, and keeping a cool head whilst doing so!

It is only posts such as yours which help us all get to the likely truth. PeterMac once said: "It is refreshing once in a while to go right back to the start and to pick away at what was said, ’until it bleeds’. In this case it becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdam’ ". (reduction to absurdity)

I, for one, am still on the fence regarding the truth about Smithman so it is very useful to read your posts aswell as Tony's and others. I believe Madeleine died on the Sunday or Monday so do not believe, for one minute, that Gerry was carrying the three/four-day-old corpse of Madeleine, but he could have been carrying Jane Tanner's daughter to create another red herring/fake sighting, or the Smiths could have genuinely seen someone else - a different man with a child...and perhaps used that sighting to help Murat/McCanns. Or he could have just made it all up, for whatever reason.
$i don\'t know$

Fact is, I spend so much time 'behind the scenes' designing/maintaining the forum; helping Peter with his e-book and my other blogs and facebook group etc, that I don't spend enough time reading the files, which is why I rarely comment on them. I've discovered that some women simply cannot multi-task!

I personally think your contribution is equally important to keep the debate going until the truth emerges, just as it did with PeterMac's Pool Photo research.

<<< (is Tony around?)

Dear Jill

I am impressed and touched by your post. The clarity of Phoebe’s presentation and sound thinking are admirable.

I thank your good self and Phoebe very much.

Respectfully

Tony Cadogan

Thank you Tony singlerose

by **Philo Beddoe** 25.09.18 14:18

Another strange thing with the Smith sighting that I found curious is Operation Grange's and DCI Redwood's reaction to it on the Crimewatch special in October 2013. By that time Scotland Yard had had the PJ files translated again and all read through, assessed and reviewed so by October 2013 Andy Redwood was well aware that Martin Smith had identified Gerry McCann as the likely person he saw carrying a child through the streets of PdL. I've also read that he was heard again by Operation Grange officers?
In the Crimewatch special Redwood goes into great detail about Smithman and appeals for information as to his identity and yet seemingly ignores the only man named as that person sitting just to his left, just inches away. We know that apparently from Mark Rowley's April 2017 press release that Gerry McCann was not interviewed as a person of interest or possible suspect in relation to the Smith sighting (or anything else for that matter). So did Scotland Yard not believe in Smithman or was it because he was identified as Gerry, someone who is allegedly 'off the table' as regards to possible suspects that the information appeals never went any further?

by Phoebe 25.09.18 14:25

A response to various points in the above posts by Jill and Carry On Doctor.

@ Carry On Doctor -
I doubt that the child the Smiths saw was Amelie dressed in the Eeyore pyjamas. Photographs from the time show that Amelie's hair was a very light blonde, one might say platinum- blonde, and the Smiths variously describe the child they saw as having "Blonde , medium-hued hair without being very light" (Martin); "The colour was fair- light brown" (Aoife) "she had blonde hair of medium shade, not very light" (Peter)
In addition, the Eeyore pyjamas are short-sleeved and Aoife Smith describes the girl's upper clothing as being long-sleeved.

@ Jill Havern. -
Some people are just naturally observant. In any case, there was a group of people who could pool, prompt and confirm the recollections of each. Just as "many hands make like work" many observations make a better description.
With regard to Mary Smith addressing the stranger - Irish people tend to be like that! I've often had complete strangers comment to me along the lines of "Aw, isn't she cute" (when my children deigned to behave!) and "Oh dear, someone's not happy!" if one was were throwing a
strop! I don't think anybody in Ireland would find it in the least unusual.
With regard to the more serious issue of the buttons on the trousers I have never believed that Aoife Smith put forward that suggestion out of the blue. Her statement, IMO, supports this theory. She says "possibly with buttons". Her statement describes the man's trousers as -

"His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration."

Phrases such as "rights along the legs" and "cotton fabric, thicker than linen" are not those one would expect to hear from a twelve year old! Remembering that statements are the written record drawn up after a period of questioning and agreed by the witness (and not a verbatim recording of everything said), I think it is obvious that such a description was drawn out during questioning, with help form the
interviewers.
To me, "possibly with buttons" suggests that Aoife was agreeing that the trousers may have been "Chino" or "Cargo" style pants which often do feature buttons.
I note she doesn't say WITH buttons, nor suggest WHERE she had seen these buttons placed on the trousers. She merely signs her agreement that these trousers MIGHT ie "Possibly" have been the type to feature buttons.
For me, the P.J. must have noticed at an early stage that the man the Smiths described matched Gerry McCann (whose version of events they doubted from the get-go) in age, height , build, skin-colour and hairstyle as well as the lack of facial hair and spectacles.
They showed an interest in discovering what the Tapas 9 were wearing that night and Dr. Amaral laments the fact that there was no photographic evidence which could help the police in this matter.
The P.J. had been in the McCann apartment. They were bound to have noticed Gerry McCanns beige cargo-style pants there. We know that a P.J. photograph was taken showing these very same trousers on the bed in Gerry's room.
I believe that, when they questioned the Smiths, that this similarity to Gerry was already in their minds.
When dealing with a female witness of twelve yrs. old (whom it was most unlikely was an expert on older mens' fashion choices or which materials and styles were in vogue) it seems reasonable to assume that she would be prompted so that they could get a clear picture of - not just colour - but also the material and style of Smithman's clothes. It cannot have escaped their notice that Gerry, while matching Smithman in age and physical appearance, also possessed a pair of beige trousers!

by willowthewisp 25.09.18 14:31

I don't understand the necessity to to castigate the "Whole Smith"family?

They have stated as to what they had seen or asked,unless there is evidence that implements them to an "Hoax"scenario,you either accept or disbelieve them?

I understand they stated "not" being able to Identify the person,but were 60-80% certain as to the person exiting the east Midlands Easy Jet flight in September bore a striking resemblance to a person's stature from Four months earlier in that passage way!

If Mr Brian Kennedy,thought it would be " helpful " to his New found friends benefit,then why wouldn't he abstain from approaching a possible"Witness's" view of what he did or did not identify!

Remember Mr Brian Kennedy his Mr Robert Murat meeting and legal cohorts,"Job Offer" or Job done,contract deal Martin Brunt?

Are you to deny these Phone call as evidence in Madeleine McCann's case!

If any of these actions were uncovered by UK Police Officers to "Ordinary Person's",they'd be in clink with serious questions of "Perverting the Course of Justice" but not this clientle,why?

The people who have the problem are Metropolitan Police Officers,who are manipulating time frames to suit a"Moving time Frame", Tannerman sighting 21.15 to Now 22.00 PM?
Then you have Mr Julian Totman,Daughters clothing worn by Two parties six yrs after a disappearance of Madeleine McCann they are trying to solve?

Five yrs later still No e-fit Man uncovered?

Operation Grange,more funding,September 2018,Eleven yrs later,continue the Cover Up!

by Tony Cadogan 25.09.18 14:58

Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitnesses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

by **Jill Havern** 25.09.18 15:30

Phoebe wrote:
@ Jill Havern. -
Some people are just naturally observant. In any case, there was a group of people who could pool, prompt and confirm the recollections of each. Just as "many hands make like work" many observations make a better description.

Yes, I'm usually observant too, when I have a need to be, like when driving for instance - but I certainly wouldn't look at a passing stranger from head to toe and make mental notes of every aspect of his face, hair and clothes (just on the offchance I might need it for an efit many months later big grin

)

by Guest 25.09.18 15:30

Tony Cadogan wrote:Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitneses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

One could say the same for the McCann witness statements, their friends, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Amy Tierney, Pamela Fenn, Carole Tranmer, Clarence Mitchell, Robert Murat, Jenny Murat - to name but a few.

The three Smith family members statements are in the public domain as part of the PJ files, they are open to scruntiny the same as any other witness statement. CMoMM and other interested parties will never make any progress towards unravelling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance if we take everything at face value.

The Smiths are integral, if for no other reason, they were instrumental in the production of the two e-fits published by ex-DCI Andy Redwood for the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special.

by Tony Cadogan 25.09.18 15:54

Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitneses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

One could say the same for the McCann witness statements, their friends, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Amy Tierney, Pamela Fenn, Carole Tranmer, Clarence Mitchell, Robert Murat, Jenny Murat - to name but a few.

One could indeed, but, crucially, not as to ‘abduction’.

by willowthewisp 25.09.18 16:42

Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitneses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

One could say the same for the McCann witness statements, their friends, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Amy Tierney, Pamela Fenn, Carole Tranmer, Clarence Mitchell, Robert Murat, Jenny Murat - to name but a few.
One could indeed, but, crucially, not as to ‘abduction’.

Hi Tony,Not according to A/C Mark Rowley, statement,"However Madeleine left that Apartment it was an Abduction",Grange Remit-Abduction, along with "His Assistance to the McCann's",his spoken words?

by Tony Cadogan 25.09.18 17:02

willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitneses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

One could say the same for the McCann witness statements, their friends, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Amy Tierney, Pamela Fenn, Carole Tranmer, Clarence Mitchell, Robert Murat, Jenny Murat - to name but a few.
One could indeed, but, crucially, not as to ‘abduction’.
Hi Tony,Not according to A/C Mark Rowley, statement,"However Madeleine left that Apartment it was an Abduction",Grange Remit-Abduction, along with "His Assistance to the McCann's",his spoken words?

You might have missed it, wiillowthewisp: I was referring to eyewitness statements. Or are you implying Mark was in PDL at the relevant time? :)

by Phoebe 25.09.18 17:26

@ Jill Havern. IMO opinion, when a group witnesses an event this results in potential observation powers multiplied by the number of individuals in the group (we'll exclude the very young).
This means that Smithman was observed by Martin Smith, Mary Smith, Peter Smith, Peter's wife S-, Aoife Smith, Tadgh Smith and another Granddaughter "A-" (aged 10 yrs). That's a grand total of seven individuals to recall the event.
A single individual may notice some things, a group will notice a lot more.

by willowthewisp 25.09.18 17:39

Tony Cadogan wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitneses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

One could say the same for the McCann witness statements, their friends, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Amy Tierney, Pamela Fenn, Carole Tranmer, Clarence Mitchell, Robert Murat, Jenny Murat - to name but a few.
One could indeed, but, crucially, not as to ‘abduction’.
Hi Tony,Not according to A/C Mark Rowley, statement,"However Madeleine left that Apartment it was an Abduction",Grange Remit-Abduction, along with "His Assistance to the McCann's",his spoken words?

You might have missed it, wiillowthewisp: I was referring to eyewitness statements. Or are you implying Mark was in PDL at the relevant time?

Hi Tony,I was referring to Mr Rowley, Abduction and his statement,Not that he was an eye witness,stand corrected.

by Tony Cadogan 26.09.18 2:27

willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
Verdi wrote:

One could say the same for the McCann witness statements, their friends, Catriona Baker, Charlotte Pennington, Amy Tierney, Pamela Fenn, Carole Tranmer, Clarence Mitchell, Robert Murat, Jenny Murat - to name but a few.
One could indeed, but, crucially, not as to ‘abduction’.
Hi Tony,Not according to A/C Mark Rowley, statement,"However Madeleine left that Apartment it was an Abduction",Grange Remit-Abduction, along with "His Assistance to the McCann's",his spoken words?

You might have missed it, wiillowthewisp: I was referring to eyewitness statements. Or are you implying Mark was in PDL at the relevant time?
Hi Tony,I was referring to Mr Rowley, Abduction and his statement,Not that he was an eye witness,stand corrected.

Yes, I understood that. Thank you, WTW

by Tony Cadogan 26.09.18 10:35

Verdi wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:Is it not important that the Smiths are eyewitneses and their statements are not hearsay? Unless they are cross-examined and shown to be untrustworthy, perhaps their statements have to be taken for what they are?

...

The three Smith family members statements are in the public domain as part of the PJ files, they are open to scruntiny the same as any other witness statement. CMoMM and other interested parties will never make any progress towards unravelling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance if we take everything at face value.

The Smiths are integral, if for no other reason, they were instrumental in the production of the two e-fits published by ex-DCI Andy Redwood for the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special.

“The three Smith family members statements are in the public domain as part of the PJ files, they are open to scruntiny the same as any other witness statement.”

Yes, they are, as is any witness statement (in the public domain).

“CMoMM and other interested parties will never make any progress towards unravelling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance if we take everything at face value.”
‘
I do not see how someone’s desire to “progress towards unravelling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance” bears on establishing the veracity of an eyewitness, but I see all too often the desire to progress being capable of begetting a bias.

With respect, eyewitness statements are not “everything”.

Is it not your view that ‘Hobs’, having taken various statements at face value, has made a valuable contribution towards unravelling the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

“The Smiths are integral [to what?], if for no other reason, they were instrumental in the production of the two e-fits published by ex-DCI Andy Redwood for the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special”.

I am not aware of the Smiths’ having been instrumental in the production of the two e-fits published by ex-DCI Andy Redwood for the Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special. I would be grateful if you would kindly substantiate your assertion.

I assure you of my goodwill.

by willowthewisp 26.09.18 14:45

Hi Tony,

The Metropolitan Police have been involved via the "Gold Group-Operation Grange" since 8 May 2007.
Leicestershire Police have been involved since alerted to Madeleine McCann's, disappearance,Abduction claim by Parents?

Both of these Police forces had "Officers" working on the case and at No time has any UK Police Force produced e-fits to a person as a suspect or person of Interest in this case?
After Eleven years,they had no witnesses to an event thought to have happened,with No Proof of an Abduction?

On 14 October 2013,Crime Watch Special,DCI Andy Redwood,productions.

Have seemingly a "Parent,Mr Julian Totman" present as evidence the clothes he and his daughter were wearing walking back from a "Night Creche",at around the time Madeleine,Jane is thought to have sighted the Abductor at a Now 22.00 PM moving time frame?

Look at all of the alleged coincidences that overlap Arquidos,the close relationship with cosy legal teams,Mr Brian Kennedy, to Martin Brunt,Gerry McCann dossier to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, Rupert Murdoch,Book Deals,News Papers,Sky News Corporation,Jim Gamble,various Home Secretary's,that there has been No Collusion or Cover Up,Control Risk Group,Blair,Brown!

All of the above names are in various files on Madeleine McCann's disappearance,yet.
No one can get any answers from Former Prime Ministers to sort of,go on record,as to what they had involved themselves into,"Protected,public Duty" guess what,the "Oath" on entering into the House of Parliament,non disclosure to prevent harm to the Sovereign state,National Security!

As Mr Goncalo Amaral stated,MI5/6,National Security takes preference!
So perhaps we'll never know with people hiding behind "Parchment Papers" No More?

So much for all of those fantastic Headlines of who or what was of utmost importance,a little Three Year old Girl,Madeleine McCann,when all along it has been to protect a certain "clique"(La Hermandad,Film, Man on Fire) in society,who now practice within the walls of Parliament,the so called UK Democracy,more like Hypocrisy?

Talk about losing "Faith",when its never been there,in that Den of inequity,Parliament,Trust in MP's,look at the Referendum result they didn't want,Leave,make erm vote again?

by Guest 26.09.18 23:48

Tony Bennett wrote:REPLY: That and all the other 'decoy' theories that have from time to time been canvassed on here seem remote in the extreme

So, following well over eleven years of research, analysis and discussion the subject has reverted to someone carrying a decoy around the streets of Praia da Luz at approximately 10:00 pm on the night of 3rd May 2007 at around the same time as Kate McCann raised the alarm and a bit less than an hour after their friend allegedly witness a potential abductor, in the hope of being seen to reinforce the abduction scenario?

Martin Smith has publicly declared he thinks the stranger he and his family witnessed is Gerry McCann. If people think Martin Smith is a credible witness, why I ask would Gerry McCann (or a look-alike) be parading himself around the streets with a corpse or a decoy or a drugged child - someone else's child, or a rag doll, only to hopefully be recognised as Gerry McCann - himself !?!

I feel I'm in the twilight zone.

by Phoebe 27.09.18 9:58

It appears to be very difficult to pin-point exactly when "the alarm" was raised as there are numerous contradictory accounts. The time lines drawn up by the Tapas 9 on the activity sticker book both state that the alarm was raised at 10 p.m. yet the rest of the staff all give various other times.
John Hill claims not to have been informed until almost ten- thirty. Emma Knights says she learned of it around 10.17 p.m. Mrs. Fenn heard nothing unusual til around 10.30 p.m., while Arlindo Peleja claims that the Tapas 9 had abandoned their table by 9.20 p.m. Maria Martins Da Silva claims to have left her apartment at 9.58 p.m. and passed 5A yet she saw no signs of activity there. Lyndsay Johnston learned of the disappearance at around 10.20 p.m. Sinead Vine learned of it at 10.45 p.m. etc etc.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 12:46

Phoebe wrote:It appears to be very difficult to pin-point exactly when "the alarm" was raised as there are numerous contradictory accounts. The time lines drawn up by the Tapas 9 on the activity sticker book both state that the alarm was raised at 10 p.m. yet the rest of the staff all give various other times.
John Hill claims not to have been informed until almost ten- thirty. Emma Knights says she learned of it around 10.17 p.m. Mrs. Fenn heard nothing unusual til around 10.30 p.m., while Arlindo Peleja claims that the Tapas 9 had abandoned their table by 9.20 p.m. Maria Martins Da Silva claims to have left her apartment at 9.58 p.m. and passed 5A yet she saw no signs of activity there. Lyndsay Johnston learned of the disappearance at around 10.20 p.m. Sinead Vine learned of it at 10.45 p.m. etc etc.

Thank you for your comment. Your style, tenor and pitch are perfect by me.

According to the Smiths, their encounter with a stranger took place at 10pm. Whilst I see no reason to doubt their recall of the encounter, how precise was their timing? Could it have been 10.10, say, or before 10?

I appreciate the arguments for the possibility of an earlier than 3 May disappearance, but, as you would know, Dr Amaral has never expressed doubt as to when Madeleine had been last seen. In fact, he said that he had no doubt whatsoever, or words to that effect, that Madeleine had been seen at 17.30. My intuition has been telling me for years that Dr Amaral is not the kind of person to make a mistake with the timing of crucial importance. I still haven’t told her to shut up.

by Guest 27.09.18 13:07

Tony Cadogan wrote:I still haven’t told her to shut up

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Care to explain that cryptic comment that doesn't appear to flow with the tenor of your post?

by Guest 27.09.18 13:17

So, if the timelines concerning the Smith sighting in relation to Kate McCann's alleged alert, could be considered unreliable because of conflicting testimonies, surely the same criteria can be applied to the assumed time that Madeleine McCann was last seen by an independent witness.

Dr Amaral's investigation was based on witness statements, there was no other means to determine timelines. If you carefully read the statements appertaining to Madeleine's last known appearance, you will see that not one reliable independent witness said they saw Madeleine alive and well at a specific time on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

That aside, my point was not intended to be about timings but about the unlikely event of Gerry McCann walking the streets of Praia da Luz in the hope of being seen - and possibly recognized.

In the words of Clarence Mitchell - it's ludicrous!

by Sundance 27.09.18 13:43

Verdi wrote:So, if the timelines concerning the Smith sighting in relation to Kate McCann's alleged alert, could be considered unreliable because of conflicting testimonies, surely the same criteria can be applied to the assumed time that Madeleine McCann was last seen by an independent witness.

Dr Amaral's investigation was based on witness statements, there was no other means to determine timelines. If you carefully read the statements appertaining to Madeleine's last known appearance, you will see that not one reliable independent witness said they saw Madeleine alive and well at a specific time on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

But we're (or at least I am) taking it as read that GA's theory is correct, so it follows that the veracity of his assertion that she was seen at approx 1730 on 03/05/07 is not in question, as his whole premise is based on it. I would be extremely surprised if he and his team had not been meticulous about this 'fact', as his competence has never been questioned by anybody that matters.
I understand that it's based on witness testimony, so they must have filtered out the wheat from the chaff at some point and decided to hang his fedora on it.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 14:17

Verdi
Tony Cadogan wrote:I still haven’t told her to shut up
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Care to explain that cryptic comment that doesn't appear to flow with the tenor of your post?

“Care to explain that cryptic comment that doesn't appear to flow with the tenor of your post?”

I don’t, but I will.

“My intuition has been telling me for years that Dr Amaral is not the kind of person to make a mistake with the timing of crucial importance. I still haven’t told her to shut up.”

My intuition is a female if you must know. I call her The White Goddess.

My post was not intended for you, so I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to understand what I was saying. Taking of appearances… To me, you often appear suspicious, rude, and lacking sense of humour.

Should you feel like questioning me in the future, please be good enough to afford me the same courtesy you afford many others on this forum. You have been obnoxious to me before, PLEASE STOP.

I love that Van Dyckian red hook in you post btw. I don’t suppose you are Van Dyck, are you?

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 14:58

Sundance wrote:
Verdi wrote:So, if the timelines concerning the Smith sighting in relation to Kate McCann's alleged alert, could be considered unreliable because of conflicting testimonies, surely the same criteria can be applied to the assumed time that Madeleine McCann was last seen by an independent witness.

Dr Amaral's investigation was based on witness statements, there was no other means to determine timelines. If you carefully read the statements appertaining to Madeleine's last known appearance, you will see that not one reliable independent witness said they saw Madeleine alive and well at a specific time on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

But we're (or at least I am) taking it as read that GA's theory is correct, so it follows that the veracity of his assertion that she was seen at approx 1730 on 03/05/07 is not in question, as his whole premise is based on it. I would be extremely surprised if he and his team had not been meticulous about this 'fact', as his competence has never been questioned by anybody that matters.
I understand that it's based on witness testimony, so they must have filtered out the wheat from the chaff at some point and decided to hang his fedora on it.

You very good at making sense, Sundance. No wonder: it happens when the Sun and the dance get together.

“Blessed are the meek:
for they shall inherit the earth”

by Phoebe 27.09.18 15:01

@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).

by Sundance 27.09.18 15:17

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).

Your attention to detail is a credit to you and the forum. You regularly, inadvertently, provide me with the answers I am too bone idle to look for myself.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 15:27

Phoebe@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).

Thank you, Phoebe, I am aware of that. I'll dream and get back to you if I have anything to get back with. The till receipts are what I have in mind.

by Tony Cadogan 27.09.18 15:42

Sundance wrote:
Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Cadogan. Martin Smith claims they left Kelly's Bar around 21.55 p.m. Peter Smith says it was between 9.50 - 10 p.m.While Aoife Smith merely says around 10 p.m.
Judging by the reports of those who claim to have walked the various routes it would take no more than 2 mins at normal speed to travel from Kelly's Bar to where Smithman was seen. Therefore he could have been seen at 9.52 (based on Peter Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's) or 21.57 (based on Martin Smith's earliest time for leaving Kelly's).
Your attention to detail is a credit to you and the forum. You regularly, inadvertently, provide me with the answers I am too bone idle to look for myself.

Seconded.

by Phoebe 27.09.18 15:47

@ Tony Cadogan. The P.J. paid a visit to Kelly's Bar on October 10th 2007. They did get copies of the till receipts which are annexed to their report but which just show the cost of drinks ordered and the change due, so they don't really reveal much and the staff could n't remember the Smith s visit -

Snipped from report-

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"

It's in the P.J files 3276-3280 under the "Bars and Restaurants" banner if that helps.