Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED

by **Jill Havern** 14.09.24 11:02

CHAPTER 63

SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED

An examination of the claim that Smithman was in fact Gerry McCann

and that the child he was carrying was his deceased daughter, Madeleine

The claim is therefore that the sighting was of

SmithGerryMan

HEALTH WARNING. Some people may find this Chapter intellectually challenging, distressing, or “triggering”. If you are prone to feelings of this sort, please DO NOT READ IT.
You are of course free to criticise and deny its content without reading or understanding it, in accordance with modern Social Media norms

Read chapter here:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2024/09/chapter-63-smith-gerry-man-scrutinised.html

by crusader 14.09.24 14:34

This is probably a stupid question, on the restaurant Dolphin/Golfino bill is the name McDonnell, is this the name on the card that was used for payment?

by crusader 14.09.24 14:47

Could it have been the waiter who served them?

by pinkgladioli 14.09.24 14:58

I’d say possibly the till operator ID

Normally your assigned your own secret identity code when operating a till
So that for reasons of assessing the days/evenings takings etc say there are discrepancies you can pinpoint which member of staff was working and had access to the till

by **PeterMac** 14.09.24 15:09

Peter Smith’s Wife
“ When they arrived at the apartment they met her brother, Peter Smith, her sister-in-law, S McD.Smith “ [Aiolfe’s statement]
Their last night so they picked up the bill.
The apartment is jointly owned by Martin, Peter’s father, and AN Other.
So they get a free holiday, and the last meal is probably the way of saying thank you

Just as my friends who come to stay with me for nothing, generally pick up the tab for a trolley load of groceries
half way through, having ‘accidentally’ dropped in a bottle of gin and one of Scotch.

Edited to add
I have just edited it, to try to stop ANOTHER set of conspiracy theories about it NOT being the right Bill and therefore the
the time being irrelevant and mystery people and all the usual stuff.

Thanks for pointing it out

by crusader 14.09.24 15:09

Thank you pinkgladioli

by crusader 14.09.24 15:10

Thank you Petermac.

by **PeterMac** 14.09.24 15:31

crusader wrote:Thank you Petermac.

Perhaps I should go back and edit,
OR leave it to see how many people actually READ it in sufficient depth to spot details like that.
Small prize for those who did !!!

EDITED TO ADD
I have just edited it, to stop any NEW theories emerging about the unreliability of the bill . . .

by Silentscope 14.09.24 16:25

Even using an Electron microscope would provide no better Resolution.
Great work Peter!

Tha addition of Buttons and the Timing along with the Carrying position now all point to someone wanting either the PJ or the Public to believe that Smithman was Gerald P. McCann.

Wasting the PJ’s resources and time. Influencing Public Opinion.

A ploy used constantly by ‘Team McCann’ to this day.

by MikaelaB 14.09.24 17:11

By MikaelaB on 15.9.24 1:39

Thoroughly enjoyed reading chapter 63 of Smith-Gerry-Man that PeterMac scrutinised. Thanks for your detailed account PeterMac. I enjoyed the clever scenes "of the unfolding drama" very much! It took me back to my 4th year high school English class. The McKon drama is certainly a tragedy of diversions, sub plots and more. However, I shouldn't have read chapter 63 so late at night (early morning) because I'm wanting to re-read. I'm sure I won't sleep now; I feel my brain is in overdrive.

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 17:17

I'm up to this bit.

So on any test the time of the ‘sighting’ of the man-with-child CANNOT be earlier than 2213 ± 3, (Aiofe time). and may be as late as 2240 ± 3 (Martin and Peter time)

That's the kind of time Gerry would have been looking for, if it was Gerry. I'll the read the rest in a little while and see what we think. Bearing in mind the call to police was 22.41. Gerry hasn't been eliminated so far.

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 18:08

It's true there are waiters in the Tapas Bar who suggest an earlier time of 21:30, but there are at least two waiters from the Tapas Bar, who put the time at 22:00 22:30. And there is a resident who appears to support that time, rather than the earlier time of 21:30.

Joaquim Baptista: Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic.

Jeronimo Salcedas: At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone. The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared.

And resident Maria da Silva had this to say: Declares further that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58?she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people.

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 18:51

Buzz Shine wrote:It's true there are waiters in the Tapas Bar who suggest an earlier time of 21:30, but there are at least two waiters from the Tapas Bar, who put the time at 22:00 22:30. And there is a resident who appears to support that time, rather than the earlier time of 21:30.

Joaquim Baptista: Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic.

Jeronimo Salcedas: At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone. The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared.

And resident Maria da Silva had this to say: Declares further that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58?she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people.

I mean, I don't know for sure who all ran back into the Tapas, but why would Gerry be the first to run to the Tapas unless it was to be seen in the Tapas? He had just left the Tapas, what could have been looking for in there?

I don't care one jot about being right or wrong, I am just dying to know the truth.

I'll pick away at the rest of it now and try to eliminate Gerry, but it's going to take conclusive evidence.

by Bluebagthepirate 14.09.24 19:08

Gerry is not an idiot.

Pretty conclusive.

by Honesty 14.09.24 19:13

Jill Havern wrote:
CHAPTER 63
SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED

An examination of the claim that Smithman was in fact Gerry McCann
and that the child he was carrying was his deceased daughter, Madeleine
The claim is therefore that the sighting was of
SmithGerryMan

HEALTH WARNING. Some people may find this Chapter intellectually challenging, distressing, or “triggering”. If you are prone to feelings of this sort, please DO NOT READ IT.
You are of course free to criticise and deny its content without reading or understanding it, in accordance with modern Social Media norms

Read chapter here:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2024/09/chapter-63-smith-gerry-man-scrutinised.html

Hats off to Peter, imo, for such a detailed analysis, regardless of whether or not we agree with him.

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 19:35

Honesty wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:
CHAPTER 63
SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED

An examination of the claim that Smithman was in fact Gerry McCann
and that the child he was carrying was his deceased daughter, Madeleine
The claim is therefore that the sighting was of
SmithGerryMan

HEALTH WARNING. Some people may find this Chapter intellectually challenging, distressing, or “triggering”. If you are prone to feelings of this sort, please DO NOT READ IT.
You are of course free to criticise and deny its content without reading or understanding it, in accordance with modern Social Media norms

Read chapter here:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2024/09/chapter-63-smith-gerry-man-scrutinised.html
Hats off to Peter, imo, for such a detailed analysis, regardless of whether or not we agree with him.

It's only because of Peter's painstaking work, that we have such a detailed analysis to work with. Hat's off to Peter, who is still probably right.

by Nina 14.09.24 20:34

Just a coupe of points probably of no consequence whatsoever but just wanted to comment, I wasn't aware that the Smith party had a little four year old with them so were they carrying their child or was she walking. Very late for a small child to walk up all those steps after eating a hearty supper with some drinks. So who was helping with the four year old?

Also the photograph of the boats. Not a much visited area of PdL I would imagine as not very scenic unless you are into interesting formations of boats to photograph maybe. Also the beach isn't very nice there so would Gerry even know about the area to go and hide a child under an upturned boat? So why is that area suggested?

by Jojo1 14.09.24 20:40

Peter...your attention to detail is outstanding and a testament to your extensive wealth of knowledge and experience in Policing. I
I just have a teeny weeny question...in the summary you mention the time of potential smithsighting as being 2000. Am I misreading or misunderstanding or maybe a typo? Sorry if my question is stupid.

by **PeterMac** 14.09.24 21:23

Jojo1 wrote:Peter...your attention to detail is outstanding and a testament to your extensive wealth of knowledge and experience in Policing. I
I just have a teeny weeny question...in the summary you mention the time of potential smithsighting as being 2000. Am I misreading or misunderstanding or maybe a typo? Sorry if my question is stupid.

Not misreading, NOT stupid.
Except me. TYPO
MANY MANY THANKS.
We need eagle eyed people to do what eagles do. To pick at the carcass until all that remains is the bare bones.
And then "Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Holmes S.

NEW VERSION
"Now we can see that the estimates of the sighting at 2200 ± 5 [edited for typo] are clearly ‘suspect’ and probably and very obviously underestimated by well over half an hour, the whole issue should be looked at again by those who have previously used it as a base for their scenarios and theories.

Muchisimas gracias.
Peter

by Cammerigal 14.09.24 22:01

A superb deconstruction of Smithman by @petermac. Truly a red herring.

I note the following that Smith stated in the PJ files, when re-questioned by the Irish police [page 4314 to 4139]

" I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane."

80%+ confidence is required for an eye witness statement, so his claim cannot therefore be relied upon.

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 22:51

We'd soon see just how much evidentiary value the Smith e-fits and their suppression had to the case if they charged Brueckner. I'd bet my house the McCanns would forever regret the fact they did suppress them, then. Keeping the focus on Tannerman would be the last of their worries.

by Jojo1 14.09.24 22:57

PeterMac wrote:
Jojo1 wrote:Peter...your attention to detail is outstanding and a testament to your extensive wealth of knowledge and experience in Policing. I
I just have a teeny weeny question...in the summary you mention the time of potential smithsighting as being 2000. Am I misreading or misunderstanding or maybe a typo? Sorry if my question is stupid.
Not misreading, NOT stupid.
Except me. TYPO
MANY MANY THANKS.
We need eagle eyed people to do what eagles do. To pick at the carcass until all that remains is the bare bones.
And then "Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Holmes S.

NEW VERSION
"Now we can see that the estimates of the sighting at 2200 ± 5 [edited for typo] are clearly ‘suspect’ and probably and very obviously underestimated by well over half an hour, the whole issue should be looked at again by those who have previously used it as a base for their scenarios and theories.

Muchisimas gracias.
Peter

Thank you for clarifying Peter.
Have always been puzzled by Smithman and it crossed my mind that Smithman was to do with timings or days being incorrect in some way or there was some other innocent explanation such as a local carrying his child home from a relatives,, restaurant and so forth, and Smithman thought no more about his relevance. I doubt it was GM or a decoy. You have put excellent explanations across in your chapter which makes it all clear.

by Silentscope 14.09.24 23:08

Buzz Shine wrote:We'd soon see just how much evidentiary value the Smith e-fits and their suppression had to the case if they charged Brueckner. I'd bet my house the McCanns would forever regret the fact they did suppress them, then. Keeping the focus on Tannerman would be the last of their worries.

But when asked if Christian B fitted the man he saw, Martin told the Sunday World: “I cannot add to the statement I gave police six years ago. This all happened 13 years ago. I have seen the pictures and coverage this week (of Christian B) but everything I could say I said in my statement to police. I don’t recognise this man.”

Martin added he has not heard from German investigators and officers from the Met had not been touch.
Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11964573/madeleine-mccann-witness-christian-b/

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 23:21

Silentscope wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:We'd soon see just how much evidentiary value the Smith e-fits and their suppression had to the case if they charged Brueckner. I'd bet my house the McCanns would forever regret the fact they did suppress them, then. Keeping the focus on Tannerman would be the last of their worries.

But when asked if Christian B fitted the man he saw, Martin told the Sunday World: “I cannot add to the statement I gave police six years ago. This all happened 13 years ago. I have seen the pictures and coverage this week (of Christian B) but everything I could say I said in my statement to police. I don’t recognise this man.”

Martin added he has not heard from German investigators and officers from the Met had not been touch.
Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11964573/madeleine-mccann-witness-christian-b/

Exactly.

The last man Fulcsher wants Martin Smith to identify, is his client. That means he can use the suppression evidence to work on Kate and Gerry. Even if Smithman isn't Gerry, Fulcsher isn't going to try to prove that to the court. He'll work on making the possibility of the opposite being true. They'd rue the day they decided to keep those e-fits stuffed up their jumpers if Fulcsher had anything to do with it.

by Buzz Shine 14.09.24 23:34

You have to look at Smithman from the point of view of the parents of a genuinely abducted little girl. You'd have to convince a court that any parents, of a genuinely abducted little girl, would suppress e-fits of a man who was described as carrying a little girl matching their little girl's description, all so they could keep the focus on Tannerman.

Good luck with that one.