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

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 14:46

pinkgladioli wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:Deffo looks like it’s KM’s beige zipper on top of what looks like a darker beige T-shirt underneath to me
I think it's definitely safe to say there are two garments there though, rather than just the one. I still think the garment on top has two legs, but my wild guesswork, isn't any better than anyone else's.
Don’t think guess work comes into its the zipper cardigan that KM wore
Anyway what’s your thoughts on the Last Photo Buzz Shine?

It’s not just me who recognises there are two garments there though. I’ve never really placed much importance on the last photo what are your thoughts on it?.

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 15:02

Hi SilentScope
Is it the TikTok video from yesterday that was posted your referring to? If so it was a BBC Breakfast interview and yes I thought the same thing as well and also in other interview’s I’ve seen clips of,
I get the impression he could be capable of dressing in similar attire even if it was to get a kick out of it just for a reaction

Do you mean Martin Frizell of GMTV the one that let Jill Renwick the McCann’s friend from Glasgow who he let go live on air to discuss the alleged abduction?
Just to say he is married to Fiona Phillip’s it was reported that Gordon Brown offered her some job after he came to power
Any way I reckon there is a very good chance that the McCanns knew Frizell from Glasgow days gone by, Kate Garraway who was a presenter for GMTV was sent out to PDL, she is Derek Draper’s widow he was some sort of Labour spin Dr I think at the time, not to mention the odious Lorraine
Of GMTV the despicable duo appeared on her show plenty of times, the relation of Gerry’s that worked for the Sun married a lady who had previously worked for News International the bought a very nice gaff in Kilwinning Ayrshire I think it’s called Kennox House purchased around 2017 I think there was some sort of charity event because Lorraine of GMTV donated something to it

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 15:09

Buzz Shine wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:Deffo looks like it’s KM’s beige zipper on top of what looks like a darker beige T-shirt underneath to me
I think it's definitely safe to say there are two garments there though, rather than just the one. I still think the garment on top has two legs, but my wild guesswork, isn't any better than anyone else's.
Don’t think guess work comes into its the zipper cardigan that KM wore
Anyway what’s your thoughts on the Last Photo Buzz Shine?
It’s not just me who recognises there are two garments there though. I’ve never really placed much importance on the last photo what are your thoughts on it?.

There are a few chapters of PeterMacs fab book that would be a great place for you to become acquainted with since I asked first would love to know your thoughts

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 16:50

pinkgladioli wrote:Don’t think guess work comes into its the zipper cardigan that KM wore
Anyway what’s your thoughts on the Last Photo Buzz Shine?

There is a significant difference between what we think and what we know though. Pinkgladioli thinks there are two garments there as well, it's not just me who thinks it. I think I can see two legs on the garment that is sitting on top. To think is to guess, just the same as to not think is to guess.

I don't think anything about the last photo, even if they have changed the date, all that would prove is they wanted to make people believe Madeleine was still alive on the Thursday. But how do you prove they altered the date? Thinking they did may satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy me. I think people waste way too much time on what did happen, and forget all about proving what didn't happen. From a prosecutor's point of view, they only have to prove what didn't happen, to nail them.

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 17:08

pinkgladioli wrote:
There are a few chapters of PeterMacs fab book that would be a great place for you to become acquainted with since I asked first would love to know your thoughts

Amaral's book is more than enough fab books for me. That's the only theory that went to court and won. There are a few chapters in the Supreme Court's ruling I am more interested in. Nothing beats some good old fashioned, legally established facts.

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 17:12

Buzz Shine wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:Don’t think guess work comes into its the zipper cardigan that KM wore
Anyway what’s your thoughts on the Last Photo Buzz Shine?
There is a significant difference between what we think and what we know though. Pinkgladioli thinks there are two garments there as well, it's not just me who thinks it. I think I can see two legs on the garment that is sitting on top. To think is to guess, just the same as to not think is to guess.

I don't think anything about the last photo, even if they have changed the date, all that would prove is they wanted to make people believe Madeleine was still alive on the Thursday. But how do you prove they altered the date? Thinking they did may satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy me. I think people waste way too much time on what did happen, and forget all about proving what didn't happen. From a prosecutor's point of view, they only have to prove what didn't happen, to nail them.

I thought it wouldn’t satisfy you after all it would blow the Smith theory to smithareens !

by pinkgladioli Yesterday at 17:14

Sorry should say Smith man theory to Smithareens!

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 17:17

pinkgladioli wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:Don’t think guess work comes into its the zipper cardigan that KM wore
Anyway what’s your thoughts on the Last Photo Buzz Shine?
There is a significant difference between what we think and what we know though. Pinkgladioli thinks there are two garments there as well, it's not just me who thinks it. I think I can see two legs on the garment that is sitting on top. To think is to guess, just the same as to not think is to guess.

I don't think anything about the last photo, even if they have changed the date, all that would prove is they wanted to make people believe Madeleine was still alive on the Thursday. But how do you prove they altered the date? Thinking they did may satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy me. I think people waste way too much time on what did happen, and forget all about proving what didn't happen. From a prosecutor's point of view, they only have to prove what didn't happen, to nail them.
I thought it wouldn’t satisfy you after all it would blow the Smith theory to smithareens !

Blowing the Smithman evidence to smithereens, wouldn't be a bad thing if it can be done. The more you can eliminate with absolutely certainty the better. That why you know he didn't have anything to do with it. What we think, me included, is no use to anyone.

by Silentscope Yesterday at 17:23

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 8 _entfu10

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 8 Maddie10

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 8 Unbena13

@Pinkgladioli Post#177
All too 'coincidence' or are there possibly more?

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 17:24

Buzz Shine wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:
There are a few chapters of PeterMacs fab book that would be a great place for you to become acquainted with since I asked first would love to know your thoughts
Amaral's book is more than enough fab books for me. That's the only theory that went to court and won. There are a few chapters in the Supreme Court's ruling I am more interested in. Nothing beats some good old fashioned, legally established facts.

You can't really say that GA's theory won. What won was GA's right to interpret the facts as he did (actually his team did). It's important to be conscious that the trial wasn't at all a libel trial, but a civil action for financial compensations.

by crusader Yesterday at 17:27

It's the original statements the Smiths made that are important, What Martin Smith said after seeing Gerry leaving the aeroplane is his and members of his family opinion only.
We can only go off what they said originally.

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 17:34

AnneCGuedes wrote:You can't really say that GA's theory won. What won was GA's right to interpret the facts as he did (actually his team did). It's important to be conscious that the trial wasn't at all a libel trial, but a civil action for financial compensations.

Amaral's theory did win. It's not Amaral's fault the McCanns didn't challenge the actual evidence that was offending them so much in his book but they could have challenged it if they had the guts to do it. Amaral didn't sue the McCanns. they sued him.

God only know what they thought Susan Hubbard could prove for them that David and Fiona Payne couldn't.

It is important to be conscious that the McCanns were the ones who chose what the trial was about. It was because of them it wasn't a libel trial.

by Nina Yesterday at 17:51

Silentscope wrote:

@Pinkgladioli Post#177
All too 'coincidence' or are there possibly more?

There is nothing laid on that bed trouser wise that would fit Gerry's ample thighs. eek

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 18:03

Nina wrote:
Silentscope wrote:

@Pinkgladioli Post#177
All too 'coincidence' or are there possibly more?
There is nothing laid on that bed trouser wise that would fit Gerry's ample thighs.

It's frustrating that the PJ didn't collect any evidence of what they were all wearing at dinner from the tapas staff. Not that they had any reason to do so, but it would have been helpful. I bet they know that now. There is a lesson there for any aspiring investigator though.

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 18:35

The MCs tried to sue GA for defamation but it was rejected, not being founded. Their one and only chance was to obtain compensation for the allegedly false claim that M had died. In reality, taking GA to court enabled them above all to make the whole world believe that the Portuguese police had slandered them. Because their reputation was at the heart of the matter. As shown by the MSM, who have always described these lawsuits as libel actions’.

What you call "theory of GA" wasn't even mentioned in Court. Judges insisted on the fact GA had the right to interpretation of facts and the mentioned facts were those in the PJFiles.

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 19:46

AnneCGuedes wrote:In reality, taking GA to court enabled them above all to make the whole world believe that the Portuguese police had slandered them.

You got the link for where their claim for defamation against Amaral was rejected Anne? The media sure kept that one quiet. That's exactly what the motive for their claim was. However, it's not a proven fact the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse and it's not a proven fact Smithman is Gerry for Amaral to interpret.

I'd just like to learn who rejected it and on what grounds.

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 20:06

Buzz Shine wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:In reality, taking GA to court enabled them above all to make the whole world believe that the Portuguese police had slandered them.
You got the link for where their claim for defamation against Amaral was rejected Anne? The media sure kept that one quiet. That's exactly what the motive for their claim was. However, it's not a proven fact the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse and it's not a proven fact Smithman is Gerry for Amaral to interpret.

I'd just like to learn who rejected it and on what grounds.

Eddie couldn't alert to Madeleine's corpse, he could only alert to a corpse, present or having be removed, because death scent is universal, we all smell the same once we're dead.

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 20:19

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:In reality, taking GA to court enabled them above all to make the whole world believe that the Portuguese police had slandered them.
You got the link for where their claim for defamation against Amaral was rejected Anne? The media sure kept that one quiet. That's exactly what the motive for their claim was. However, it's not a proven fact the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse and it's not a proven fact Smithman is Gerry for Amaral to interpret.

I'd just like to learn who rejected it and on what grounds.

Eddie couldn't alert to Madeleine's corpse, he could only alert to a corpse, present or having be removed, because death scent is universal, we all smell the same once we're dead.

But Amaral didn't claim Eddie alerted to a universal scent of death, Amaral claimed Eddie alerted to the scent of Madeleine's death and that's how he could prove she died in apartment 5a.

by Jojo1 Yesterday at 20:44

On for goodness sake @buzzshine, you are starting to sound like a stuck record in your attempts to discredit everyone's comments. You are starting to sound like an infiltrator from the McCanns camp. You have taken over this whole thread and members can't be bothered to comment. Give it a rest please and stay on topic.
Sorry admin if my comment here isn't allowed

by Buzz Shine Yesterday at 20:49

Jojo1 wrote:On for goodness sake @buzzshine, you are starting to sound like a stuck record in your attempts to discredit everyone's comments. You are starting to sound like an infiltrator from the McCanns camp. You have taken over this whole thread and members can't be bothered to comment. Give it a rest please and stay on topic.
Sorry admin if my comment here isn't allowed

I'll just shut up, I'm bored to death with this thread now anyway.

It's all your now kid.

by crusader Yesterday at 20:51

G Amaral didn't just come to the conclusion it was Madeleine who died in 5a.
He checked to see if anyone had ever died there.

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 21:04

Buzz Shine wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:In reality, taking GA to court enabled them above all to make the whole world believe that the Portuguese police had slandered them.
You got the link for where their claim for defamation against Amaral was rejected Anne? The media sure kept that one quiet. That's exactly what the motive for their claim was. However, it's not a proven fact the dogs alerted to Madeleine's corpse and it's not a proven fact Smithman is Gerry for Amaral to interpret.

I'd just like to learn who rejected it and on what grounds.

Eddie couldn't alert to Madeleine's corpse, he could only alert to a corpse, present or having be removed, because death scent is universal, we all smell the same once we're dead.
But Amaral didn't claim Eddie alerted to a universal scent of death, Amaral claimed Eddie alerted to the scent of Madeleine's death and that's how he could prove she died in apartment 5a.

Amaral, sorry to say, knew nothing at the time about scents and dogs. Neither did I, I studied and read a lot. That's how I know that death scent is universal (among human beings). Amaral deduced from the fact no death had been registered in the flat that the scent came from M. He would have had difficulty to use this as evidence in a court of law. Rarely, but it happens, people die in a place where it's not convenient to let it know...

by AnneCGuedes Yesterday at 21:05

On 2009 June 12 Kate MC met the lawyer Isabelle Duarte for the first time. ID suggested "filing a summary action against GA's book and the DVD of the documentary to prevent the distribution and repetition of his damaging theories. The next phase would be to sue Amaral for defamation." KMC seems not to have understood that this could not be defamation. "This application was rejected on the grounds that any damage had already been caused..." (it is true that the book sold very well but only for a relatively short time, a short seller)... "Isabel appealed on our behalf, as we felt strongly that the damage was still present, both to the search for Madeleine and to the human rights associated with our family. The Court of Appeal agreed that our case should be re-examined and, on 3 September 2009, four of our witnesses appeared in court to give evidence. Five days later, the judge accepted the application for interim measures and ordered that Gonçalo Amaral's theories should no longer be repeated". (in "Madeleine").

by Bluebagthepirate Yesterday at 21:07

Buzz Shine wrote:
I'll just shut up, I'm bored to death with this thread now anyway.

What a shame.

I was hoping you would finally answer some questions instead of ignoring points put to you, repeating things that people have explained to you and taking the piss.

You slipped with the pushchair up to the face comment.

The conflating of Smith statements was another slip.

by **PeterMac** Today at 8:30

That's a relief.

Getting "bored" with a thread can mean the person has been unsuccessful in disrupting it.

Latest topics