Re: Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 9:01

Paddingtom wrote:Ah, I think that is one thing everyone agrees on. It was definately 3rd because some members of the smiths were going home the next day so remembered it and also the pub had a receipt for their drinks for 3rd.

They never drank on other nights?

by **PeterMac** 02.07.24 9:53

Tannerman wasn't carrying Madeleine
Smithman wasn't carrying Madeleine
Madeleine died on 2/5/7, and her body was out of the apartment by late 2/5/7 or very early hours of 3/5/7

Tannerman was pure invention - but kept everyone focussed on abduction for 8 years
Smithman is irrelevant - but has kept everyone focussed on 3/5/7 for 17 years

Both very clever in their own way.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 9:58

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Paddingtom wrote:Ah, I think that is one thing everyone agrees on. It was definately 3rd because some members of the smiths were going home the next day so remembered it and also the pub had a receipt for their drinks for 3rd.
They never drank on other nights?

I'll answer my own question... yes they did (they're Irish!)

From their own statement they frequented the bars in PDL and saw Robert Murat drunk a number of times.

As Peter says, the Smithman "sighting" is meaningless.

It makes no sense anyway as it would be a ridiculous unnecessary risk to have Gerry spotted somewhere he officially wasn't supposed to be.

by **sandancer** 02.07.24 10:03

Regarding cctv, If I remember rightly it was not allowed to face onto public streets only on private grounds .

I'm sure the camera the PJ tried to access footage from was at a hotel .

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me , my memory is not what it was !

by **crusader** 02.07.24 10:16

The CCTV on private property is different from public CCTV.
The council run ones are usually fixed to poles or street lights.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 11:01

crusader wrote:We know the Smiths saw someone with a child, so why would they need to abandon plan A, they didn't need to mention Tannerman once Gerry? had been seen by the Smiths.
This is their mistake in my opinion, they didn't have to prove anything, that was the police job.
All they had to do was say Madeleine had been abducted, nothing else.
The Smith sighting was either to try to prove an abduction or it was someone with their own child.

They didnt want GM to be seen by people that could ultimately identify him. Thats why they wanted cctv to see him...it couldnt testify it was him. So, when the smiths saw him they had to abandon plan A and try and send the police in the opposite direction.

I agree with Petermac that no-one was carrying mm. My theory is that GM was carrying Ella.

Going back to whether Tannerman was intended all along or not, I ve just had a brainwave. If any of their flats looked north that would have been a perfect vantage point to see Tannerman walking from right to left towards R.1 o de Maio. Does anyone know who stayed in what flat and whether they had a northerly view please? I cant find it.

Also, PeterMac, Im interested that you are happy to accept Bernt's timeline. What was it that persuaded you away from 29th ?

by **crusader** 02.07.24 11:15

All the Tapas lot and the McCann flats faced the same way overlooking the pool.
5A McCann
5B Oldfield
5D O'Brien
5H Payne above.

by **Silentscope** 02.07.24 11:40

Bluebagthepirate wrote:So the theory is that Gerry, after unexpectedly bumping into Jez walks around the streets by some bars in the hope of being caught on cctv of unknown fuzziness whilst hoping not to unexpectedly bump into other people by bars then change clothes and leave them on the bed?

I'm thinking not because it makes no sense whatsoever.

What does make sense is:

Gerry had already set the timelines for an Alert at 22:00.
The Smiths sighting was at 21:55 - 22:03.

But the PJ suspect that the Alert was raised 21:20 -21:30
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

Half an Hour is missing.

That is the only time period where Smithman could have been Gerry. (If it was him)

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 11:40

Paddingtom wrote:

They didnt want GM to be seen by people that could ultimately identify him.

What, like Jez did 45 minutes earlier?

There is no way he would do something so unpredictably insane in a part of town with people in and out of bars and restaurants.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 11:45

when GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anyone. Goncalo says in his book that at that time of year only half the bars and restaurants were open and they closed at 9.00 . The streets would have been deserted.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 11:47

Silentscope wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:So the theory is that Gerry, after unexpectedly bumping into Jez walks around the streets by some bars in the hope of being caught on cctv of unknown fuzziness whilst hoping not to unexpectedly bump into other people by bars then change clothes and leave them on the bed?

I'm thinking not because it makes no sense whatsoever.

What does make sense is:

Gerry had already set the timelines for an Alert at 22:00.
The Smiths sighting was at 21:55 - 22:03.

But the PJ suspect that the Alert was raised 21:20 -21:30
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

Half an Hour is missing.

That is the only time period where Smithman could have been Gerry. (If it was him)

I think they were suposed to do it earlier but chatting to jez made the timeline slip and the alarm was raised by KM because she didnt know he had been held up.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 11:52

Paddingtom wrote:when GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anyone. Goncalo says in his book that at that time of year only half the bars and restaurants were open and they closed at 9.00 . The streets would have been deserted.

They were clearly not deserted... Jez... Smiths...

And bars and restaurants were open... Dolphin, Kelly's...

There were people on holiday in PDL, people who would have seen Gerry during the week at bars and creches and tennis sessions...

It makes no sense that Gerry would take the risk of walking around those streets - by the bars and restaurants - carrying a child.

Like happened with Jez just 45 minutes before.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 11:54

crusader wrote:All the Tapas lot and the McCann flats faced the same way overlooking the pool.
5A McCann
5B Oldfield
5D O'Brien
5H Payne above.

thanks so much Crusader. But Ive just found an article that shows the apartments from the north side. It would appear that they are like terrace houses, you know with a front and back garden. ALL of them overlokked the north side.

Therefore my theory now says that Tannerman was always intended. He would be seen going from Right to left towards the dogleg junction. Then he would turn up on cctv going to the beach. And then he would turn up in Sagres. Job done.

However, the smith sighting meant he had to go from left to right towards the Sagres road (and Murats house conveniently) and had to be seen from a different vantage point. i.e outside the tapas bar side.

I know you all think Im barking, but thats fine. I am very content in my little world and it all makes sense to me. I am happy with my days work. Now I must get back to the weeding.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 11:55

Paddingtom wrote:when GM saw Jez, he wasnt carrying anyone. Goncalo says in his book that at that time of year only half the bars and restaurants were open and they closed at 9.00 . The streets would have been deserted.

Cleary at least Kelly's was not closed at 9.00 and I suspect neither were the others.

And half the bars is still half the bars.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 13:01

its raining so im back. I suspect an occasional drunk wouldnt have mattered but the problem with the Smiths was that there were so many of them and even if one or two had had several drinks, clearly most would be stone cold sober. The other problem is that they could speak to each other about it and agree it was odd or perfectly normal.

I stand by my theory until someone ;persuades me otherwise and so far noone has. You dont have to believe it. Thats fine. we are all able to come up with theories taht are supported or not. noone has proof of anything yet. Lets hope one day we will.

by Cake Lover 02.07.24 13:07

It's a more realistic proposition than micro- chipping, genetic engineering and organ harvesting, all of which have been aired in various forms., imo.

by **crusader** 02.07.24 13:13

You stand by what you believe Paddingtom, we all have our own thoughts on what happened.
Nobody knows the truth of what happened to Madeleine so we can all theorise, it matters not if we have difference of opinions, we can still debate.

by Cake Lover 02.07.24 13:16

Yep, that's the reason we're here. I hope we never run out of new ideas.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 13:28

cake lover, whats all this about micrchipping? havent heard this one . are you able to explain please?

by Cake Lover 02.07.24 13:36

I can barely remember where i read it, it was in the vey early days, and I joined the forum much later than that. But I think it was mentioned here and I certainly heard people discussing it when I was out and about. Others with a better memory than mine may be able to shed some light on it.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 14:32

Paddingtom wrote:You dont have to believe it.

Thanks.

I don't.

It's illogical.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 14:34

Paddingtom wrote: I suspect an occasional drunk wouldnt have mattered but the problem with the Smiths was that there were so many of them and even if one or two had had several drinks, clearly most would be stone cold sober.

Jez wasn't drunk.

How did Gerry know he would only meet a few drunks?

How did he know he wouldn't bump into more people like Jez?

How did he know that all the cctv cameras were fuzzy?

by **Nina** 02.07.24 18:17

Cake Lover wrote:I can barely remember where i read it, it was in the vey early days, and I joined the forum much later than that. But I think it was mentioned here and I certainly heard people discussing it when I was out and about. Others with a better memory than mine may be able to shed some light on it.

Yes in the very early days there was discusions about microchipping babies as soon as they are born and their first blood tests being used to get their dna. What was also discussed was a system in Europe all linked together for if a child was missing a bit like a European alert. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/euro-plea-missing-children-3480638

by **Bluebagthepirate** 02.07.24 20:19

A quarter of the way through the book now.

This is just been discussed.

In the video it is ridiculous the way Gerry's and Jane's different "side of the road" versions are dismissed.

Also in the video, the close up clip of a man walking across the top of the road is filmed from an elevated position just like the fraudulent Tannerman sketch. Just so we can see pink pyjamas.

Jane is allegedly downhill of the man (if she was even there) and would not have seen the upper part of a child being carried like that.

I wonder if their friends ever question them about these things?

by GreenTara 02.07.24 23:05

Jill Havern wrote:It costs a lot of money for a book to be professionally produced - they all need paying...do you think they should all work for free because it's in a 'good cause', or something?

Editors
Designers
Printers
Publishers
Agents
PR
Etc.

I agree! Plus the field cams etc.
He is taking a risk too, if he ends up in court that’s gonna be pretty costly.
I absolutely do not believe he has done this for money & neither should he feel embarrassed to charge for the input he has dedicated to the project.

by GreenTara 02.07.24 23:12

PeterMac wrote:
Cake Lover wrote:Have you put yourself through all of that to be unimpressed with the book? It's a shame if that's the case.

Au contraire

It is almost incontrovertible proof of both, to a standard and in such detail that it would take a good (or unscrupulous) Defence lawyer
to insert even a reasonable doubt into either statement.
and remember that the defence has no witnesses.
There is no one who can supply a contrary scenario, no one who has ever, even after 17 years
to been able to explain how IT could have been done.
Not anyone,
Not Mendax Maximus Mitchell, nor Inventitative Journalist Clarke-Kent.
Every important aspect of their original story was destroyed within hours,
much of it in the clear sight of those watching the TV news that morning, (though not, strangely, of Clarke who was there)
And the second story was destroyed shortly after its invention, as were subsequent iterations.

The book does two things. It lists and details their lies,
AND then goes further, in part 3 to detail an impressive single handed CROP operation,
which produces unexpected results

Also tells individuals directly what they are lawfully & ethically guilty of and specifically why. He speaks directly to them in ways they are unlikely to have ever been spoken to before. He has literally left nowhere for the players to hide.

Lots of humour too, he calls David Paynes statements “err soup”

by **Bluebagthepirate** 03.07.24 6:20

One third of the way through now and I have to say it is well worthwhile.

There is a lot of repetition... a lot... but I'm used to that now.

It's a great recap for me who has been digging away at this on various forums since the beginning - The Mirror, 3As and CMOMM - like most of us here probably.

A good reminder.

by Paddingtom 03.07.24 7:02

Just a quick thankyou to Cake Lover and Nina for info about microchipping. It wouldnt be used for controlling activities Im sure...no not at all!!!

And a big thankyou to Crusader for helping me resolve my dilema of whether Tannerman was a last minute invention or existed from the start. You have made it very clear you do not agree with my theory but you tried to help me all the same and are always respectful despite having very different views. It was remiss of me not to thank you sooner. Apologies. I am now happy with my completed theory.

by Shash T 05.07.24 14:45

Hooray! My book has arrived! Can't wait to start reading it.

by **AnneCGuedes** 05.07.24 18:16

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Paddingtom wrote: I suspect an occasional drunk wouldnt have mattered but the problem with the Smiths was that there were so many of them and even if one or two had had several drinks, clearly most would be stone cold sober.
Jez wasn't drunk.

How did Gerry know he would only meet a few drunks?

How did he know he wouldn't bump into more people like Jez?

How did he know that all the cctv cameras were fuzzy?

He couldn't have known that cctvs are banned in Portugal in the public sphere (except in very specific and limited places), but he obviously thought he was in some sort of third world country where there are no cctvs.

Latest topics