BRICK Reviews

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

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.

Chapter 20: An Irish family in a state of shock

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

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.

Bluebagthepirate wrote: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?

pinkgladioli wrote:It’s also disingenuous to suggest that everyone forgets things   I like others knew that Scotland Yard released the photo fits 

No matter what, the McCanns ultimate investment is Tannerman 

Im sure it’s post 297 or there abouts  by Peter Mac that sums it up perfectly

PeterMac wrote:And 18 years later we are still here debating - burial in sand, upturned boats, going back to move the body later and all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence at all.

Jill Havern wrote:

pinkgladioli wrote:It’s also disingenuous to suggest that everyone forgets things   I like others knew that Scotland Yard released the photo fits 

No matter what, the McCanns ultimate investment is Tannerman 

Im sure it’s post 297 or there abouts  by Peter Mac that sums it up perfectly

PeterMacSmithman is fascinating.
He could almost have been invented by the McCanns
They invented Tannerman, but probably realised that he/it was going to be blown out of the water very quickly.

As he/it was.
Redwood got embarrassed and invented Totman-man to take the blame
But the McCanns cannot let go of Tannerman, and TO THIS DAY he is still on the Madeleine Website 

But then up pops Smithman, and immediately half the researchers and the PJ latch onto him
This suits the McCanns perfectly since half are now ignoring Tannerman, and both 'sightings' reinforce the idea of an Abductor.
OK the times don't fit, but that is not their concern.

Their concern is that there is confusion, and an endless supply of theories to cover up the fact that neither Tannerman nor Smithman have anything at all to do with the death and concealment of Madeleine the previous night,

They now have TWO wild goose chases running, and NO ONE, NOT ANYONE is looking at the Pool Photo, or the creche sheets, or any of the other evidence staring us all in the face for YEARS..
And NO ONE is asking any of the staff or witnesses - in any detail - about what they saw on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, or even Sunday.  It was perfect.

And 18 years later we are still here debating - burial in sand, upturned boats, going back to move the body later and all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence at all.

And all of which incidentally blunts Occam's Razor so badly that it can never be sharpened again

PeterMac wrote:New evidence should of course be tested, to destruction, but not simply rejected merely because it does not 'fit' the preconception, or excluded from the debate because it is different.

We must remain agnostic, and look only at the evidence and see where it leads us.   We must, like a jury, listen to the 'Defence' and weight the opposing evidence - WITHOUT IMPOSING ON IT our own prejudgments.

There is more which Bernt has not yet disclosed, and which is 'developing' as we e-speak,

I would caution against making bold and final decisions at this point.

PeterMac wrote:I can understand the hostility towards Brent Stellander's book from those who have written and published their own books or put videos on You Tube in which they detail their own research and set out the conclusions which they present as defiitive and final, and following logically from the evidence they provide.

A long and detailed book putting forward a different suggestion about the sequence of events, then backed up with prediction and subsequent scientific testing of that prediction is always going to be challenging.
And when that testing of the prediction leads, as in scientific method, to subsequent hypotheses which are offered openly for further testing, the intellectual challenge becomes greater at each stage.

People who have worked in this case, in some instances for 18 years, are likely to harden their 'beliefs'.
But that is a danger.    New evidence should of course be tested, to destruction, but not simply rejected merely because it does not 'fit' the preconception, or excluded from the debate because it is different.

Therein lie the Miscarriages of justice we have seen and are seeing in the Post Office case, Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans,  Malkinson, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, and many more in the UK, let alone Drefus, van de Lubbe, and many more in European jurisdictions.

We must remain agnostic, and look only at the evidence and see where it leads us.   We must, like a jury, listen to the 'Defence' and weight the opposing evidence - WITHOUT IMPOSING ON IT our own prejudgments.

There is more which Bernt has not yet disclosed, and which is 'developing' as we e-speak,

I would caution against making bold and final decisions at this point.

Or as someone else said more eloquently
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"    Matt.  7:1-5

Be patient, and remain open minded.