Re: BRICK Reviews

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 19:13

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.
Which part is compelling?
The supressing the e-fits is compelling. The McCanns were more than prepared to release the Victoria Beckham lookalike e-fits. Taking the focus away from Tannerman had it's advantages to them when they felt it suited them. Smithman was witnessed at the right time and in the right location, if they knew he wasn't Gerry, releasing them asap was perfect publicity for them, IMO.

Who suppressed the e-fits?
They had their own Tannerman to promote if you think it was the McCanns who did the suppressing. They didn't want anyone getting in the way of that.

Smithman was wrong time and location for Gerry.
He's also not stupid enough to wandering around bars and restaurant areas - undisguised - when he could bump into anyone.

Not really compelling at all.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 19:27

Jill Havern wrote:From Bernt:

Please respond to Buzz Shine who responded.
"Not when the second abductor is a perfect sketch of Gerry. Of course that doesn't count as a second potential abductor, as seen from the mccs. This is about the sketch, not number of potential abductors running around".

If I had staged an abduction and I knew for certain the person in the sketch wasn't me, even if it looked like me, I know I could make it count and I'd want to make it count as a second potential abductor to the public and maybe even to the police. All I have to do is concentrate on the description of the child the suspect was carrying and ignore everything they said about me. I know I don't have to worry, because I know it's not me. That's a stage abductor and a public relation experts dream IMO. It's oh so much better than the Victoria Beckham debacle.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 19:44

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.
Which part is compelling?
The supressing the e-fits is compelling. The McCanns were more than prepared to release the Victoria Beckham lookalike e-fits. Taking the focus away from Tannerman had it's advantages to them when they felt it suited them. Smithman was witnessed at the right time and in the right location, if they knew he wasn't Gerry, releasing them asap was perfect publicity for them, IMO.
Who suppressed the e-fits?
They had their own Tannerman to promote if you think it was the McCanns who did the suppressing. They didn't want anyone getting in the way of that.

Smithman was wrong time and location for Gerry.
He's also not stupid enough to wandering around bars and restaurant areas - undisguised - when he could bump into anyone.

Not really compelling at all.

By the time they got those e-fits drawn up, Tannerman was under real pressure. The kind of pressure Smithman could have eased for them. If Madeleine died in the apartment, they had to get her out through the streets of PDL somehow. They didn't have a car. Kate could have slept in the childrens' room because Madeleine's corpse was in the wardrobe for all anyone knows. That's why only qualified investigators with full clearance to investigate thoroughly can ever have a chance of solving it.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:03

Tannerman has never been under pressure as far as the McCanns were concerned and is still pushed today.

So you seem to be ruling out Bernt Stellander because he's not a qualified investigator?

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:06

Oh and if you think Maddy may have been in the wardrobe and kate slept in the spare bed then you rule out 3rd of May as time of death which kind of alleviates the need for a mad stupid rush at 10pm.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 20:17

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Oh and if you think Maddy may have been in the wardrobe and kate slept in the spare bed then you rule out 3rd of May as time of death which kind of alleviates the need for a mad stupid rush at 10pm.

What I think doesn't matter, it's what we know that matters. I never said anything about any mad rush at 10pm. It could all have been planned well before that for all I know. I don't see how they could have possibly gotten Madeleine out the apartment without walking her corpse through the streets of PDL somehow, at some point though. That's just one part of Smithman that I find feasible.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:21

In a bag in the early hours of the morning?
Is that not feasible?

Are you saying Bernt can't solve this by the way?

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 20:27

Of course the bag is feasible, that's why you can't rule it out. You'd have to actually be certain that Madeleine fitted in it comfortably though. Whether it was in the bag, or in Gerry's arms, they still had to get her out through the streets of PDL. I'm saying I'll be amazed if Brent, or anyone outside the investigation can solve it. I'm not saying I wouldn't love him to solve it though.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:30

I find Smithman unfeasible because it makes no sense.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 20:50

Smithman makes perfect sense to Amaral. Nor did I see the McCanns calling on their seven friends at his trial to put Smithman and Amaral's theory to bed once and for all. If they were all sitting with Gerry at the time, putting Smithman to bed once and for all would have been easy as pie. A lot of things about Smithman, don't make any sense. They didn't put him to bed once and for all and paid the ultimate price.

by Nina 08.09.24 21:01

If I had done something really wrong and I had to cover it up I would have to choose the ordinary way that was what people would expect to see for the time of day. So in this case wheeling a buggy, carrying a child or dressed in sports gear carrying a sports bag. Even digging on the beach to bury daddy up to his chin.
Basically just normal family holiday stuff.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 21:08

There are pros and cons for every method. Whether Gerry is Smithman or whether he isn't, he made sure no-one could see Madeleine's face. If it wasn't for the one family, no-one would have seen him at all. Fair play to him if it was Gerry, he very nearly got the perfect result. One family is as close as it gets.

by Nina 08.09.24 21:10

Bluebagthepirate wrote:I find Smithman unfeasible because it makes no sense.

What does make sense though is that some children would be left at the night creche to be picked up by parents or a parent and then taken back to where they were staying. For little children they would have to be carried or put into a buggy. The Tannerman sighting always concerned me because he was carrying a sleeping and quite heavy child. Surely you would have taken a buggy, even if the child was skipping at the side of it for the delivery to the creche but the buggy was then parked up there for the pick up when a small child would be very sleepy. You prepare for the easiest option as a parent. Surely?

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 21:23

Buzz Shine wrote:Smithman makes perfect sense to Amaral. Nor did I see the McCanns calling on their seven friends at his trial to put Smithman and Amaral's theory to bed once and for all. If they were all sitting with Gerry at the time, putting Smithman to bed once and for all would have been easy as pie. A lot of things about Smithman, don't make any sense. They didn't put him to bed once and for all and paid the ultimate price.

Did Amaral say Smithman was Gerry?

Does he still say that?

I'm not sure the PJ were impressed with Martin Smith nor should they be considering he forgot Smithman was Gerry by January 2008.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 21:37

Chapter 20: An Irish family in a state of shock

The child's head is against Gerald's left shoulder and his arms dangling by his sides. Gerald walks across the tarmac, still holding his son closely against himself.

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 21:40

Buzz Shine wrote:
Chapter 20: An Irish family in a state of shock

The child's head is against Gerald's left shoulder and his arms dangling by his sides. Gerald walks across the tarmac, still holding his son closely against himself.

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

Yes that sums up the Smith story.

Now did Amaral believe it?

Does he still believe it?

Why did Smith forget it was Gerry by January 2008?

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 21:43

Why did Gerry go to the trouble of contacting the Smiths in the first place and getting them to draw up e-fits for him to keep stuffed up his jumper? He didn't know what the Smiths had told the PJ at the point but what would it matter if their evidence was worthless?

by crusader 08.09.24 21:59

I'm not sure a parent picking a child up from the night creche would be in that area, if anyone can point me to a map showing the distance between the night creche and the Smith sighting , I would be very interested.
Also, did Mark Warner have apartments or villas for guests in the vicinity of the Smith sighting or further down near the beach?
Was the man going to a Mark Warner property, if he had a child in the creche, he would have had to be a guest.

by Nina 08.09.24 22:08

crusader wrote:I'm not sure a parent picking a child up from the night creche would be in that area, if anyone can point me to a map showing the distance between the night creche and the Smith sighting , I would be very interested.
Also, did Mark Warner have apartments or villas for guests in the vicinity of the Smith sighting or further down near the beach?
Was the man going to a Mark Warner property, if he had a child in the creche, he would have had to be a guest.

Good point Crusader. Surely it was only for Mark Warner holiday makers. Some though like the Gorrods were staying up by the Millenium restaurant so they could have had lets down by the beach as many of the apartments were owned by Joe Public but let through Mark Warner.

by crusader 08.09.24 23:26

So now I've found a map showing where the night creche was and in my opinion it could not have been someone picking their child up from there that the Smiths saw.
No way.

by Jojo1 09.09.24 2:35

Smithman may well have been a resident living down the street who was taking his child home from relatives a few doors down or other simple explanation, and maybe he didn't think that him doing that would be of any relevance to the PJ investigation therefore didn't report it. Because the smithman sighting wasn't widely publicised from what I remember. Smithman was possibly rushing home to get out of the cold and tuck his child into bed. Why the McCanns downplayed this sighting, I have no clue. I am totally confused by smithman as surely Gerry wouldn't risk being seen by anyone at the same time as the fake abduction performance was playing out. It makes no sense to their timeliness and walking directions whatsoever. I'm off to refresh my memory in the files as I'm rusty. You guys are way more clued up than I am. I tend to go with Occams Razor in all this and go for simple and probable

by Bluebagthepirate 09.09.24 6:22

Buzz Shine wrote:Why did Gerry go to the trouble of contacting the Smiths in the first place and getting them to draw up e-fits for him to keep stuffed up his jumper? He didn't know what the Smiths had told the PJ at the point but what would it matter if their evidence was worthless?

Appearances.

It's all about appearances. They had to show interest. Strangely the efits dont appear to be suppressed as you said because they are all over the Internet

Anyway... how come Smith forgot it was Gerry he saw by January 2008?

How come come he changed normal to unusual in regards to what he saw?

by Bluebagthepirate 09.09.24 6:24

crusader wrote:So now I've found a map showing where the night creche was and in my opinion it could not have been someone picking their child up from there that the Smiths saw.
No way.

Who said it had to be?

Smith said the sight was normal.

Oh yeah... and not a tourist.

by Buzz Shine 09.09.24 7:36

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:Why did Gerry go to the trouble of contacting the Smiths in the first place and getting them to draw up e-fits for him to keep stuffed up his jumper? He didn't know what the Smiths had told the PJ at the point but what would it matter if their evidence was worthless?
Appearances.

It's all about appearances. They had to show interest. Strangely the efits dont appear to be suppressed as you said because they are all over the Internet

Anyway... how come Smith forgot it was Gerry he saw by January 2008?

How come come he changed normal to unusual in regards to what he saw?

It's disingenuous to suggest I'm making the suppression of the e-fits all up IMO. It's true the e-fits appeared all over the internet right after Scotland Yard, not the McCanns, made a very public appeal for Smithman to come forward, but that was more than 4 years after the e-fits were drawn up. Why does everyone forget things? Because the human memory is fallible. It's quite possible Smith's memory was manipulated by what he had read in the media over time, but it wasn't Smith who supressed the e-fits, it was the McCanns. They were too interested in releasing their Victoria Beckham e-fits even though Barcelona is nowhere near PDL.

by Bluebagthepirate 09.09.24 8:07

Exactly! They were too interested in their other narratives being pushed big time to confuse the issue with other narratives.

So who released the McCanns own efits then?

Chapter 20: An Irish family in a state of shock

Chapter 20: An Irish family in a state of shock

Latest topics