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

by pinkgladioli 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 17:14

Sorry should say Smith man theory to Smithareens!

by Buzz Shine 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 17:23

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 7 _entfu10

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 7 Maddie10

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 7 Unbena13

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

by **AnneCGuedes** 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 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 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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** 18.09.24 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** 19.09.24 8:30

That's a relief.

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

by Cake Lover 19.09.24 8:44

The forum rules don't allow disruption; shouldn't it be nipped in the bud when it's picked up?

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 8:57

Cake Lover wrote:The forum rules don't allow disruption; shouldn't it be nipped in the bud when it's picked up?

It was passive disruption.

Clever and not a lot you can do.

Buzz over-egged his pudding a few times and it was obvious he wasn't interested in honest debate.

by Cake Lover 19.09.24 9:17

I know what you mean, but isn't that what admin is for?

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 9:31

Cake Lover wrote:I know what you mean, but isn't that what admin is for?

He/She kept it civil and didn't break any rules and made sure to like lots of posts that bizarrely were the opposite of his weak goal post moving argument.

Just very irritating.

Pretty sure it was a wind up from another forum.

by Jojo1 19.09.24 12:47

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Cake Lover wrote:I know what you mean, but isn't that what admin is for?
He/She kept it civil and didn't break any rules and made sure to like lots of posts that bizarrely were the opposite of his weak goal post moving argument.

Just very irritating.

Pretty sure it was a wind up from another forum.

I have to agree with you on this as he/she was becoming argumentative. I am all for healthy debate as there's always new things to learn based on evidence. I am learning new things here all the time after being out of the loop for a very long time. However it appeared as though he was disregarding Petermacs chapter and credibility and was hell bent on ripping it to shreds. So I had a look on facebook and there's some bloke over on facebook who has his own page apparently is plugging Smithman at the moment and this person was sounding just like him.
Apologies for going off topic here and apologies if I caused bother by causing him to become "bored of smithman"

by Buzz Shine 19.09.24 14:50

I gave the forum a crack and I wasn't your cup of tea and neither were you mine. That's no big deal to me. I'm a genuine guy who wants to know the truth, who meant no malice, that's it. The public will be able to judge for themselves who the nasty pieces of work are on here and I know it wasn't me. I'd like to thank whoever warned me what's being happening to anyone who dares challenge the forum narrative on Smithman from 2013. now I know what you mean.

To any member of the public who may be reading this, don't make the same mistake I made, these guys just ain't worth it.

Adios.

by Jojo1 19.09.24 16:19

Buzz Shine wrote:I gave the forum a crack and I wasn't your cup of tea and neither were you mine. That's no big deal to me. I'm a genuine guy who wants to know the truth, who meant no malice, that's it. The public will be able to judge for themselves who the nasty pieces of work are on here and I know it wasn't me. I'd like to thank whoever warned me what's being happening to anyone who dares challenge the forum narrative on Smithman from 2013. now I know what you mean.

To any member of the public who may be reading this, don't make the same mistake I made, these guys just ain't worth it.

Adios.

Sorry to hear that we weren't your cup of tea Buzz shine.
No doubt you are a genuine guy in search of the truth. We all are genuine people here also in search of the truth. Nobody here are nasty pieces of work. We are trying to unravel the mystery surrounding the case. There are no hidden agendas here. All we have to go off are a small percentage of police files that have been made public. We are not privy to a most of the files which makes the case harder to unravel.
Whilst you made some valid points in this discussion, you didn't really answer members raised questions. I think that is what frustrated members.
Petermac thoroughly scrutinised Smithman and basically smashed him to smithereens in an easy to comprehend way. His whole ebook is excellent and I highly recommend reading it carefully. Peter is a former chief inspector with a wealth of knowledge and experience of investigative practices and a very trustworthy fella.
You are an intelligent and articulate fella also who is clearly clued up on the MM case. Most people here are way more experienced than me.I have been out of the loop
Stick around. You will see we are not nasty pieces of work at all. We challenge and debate openly. You will also see that members have their own theories on the smithman, dates etc.. But what we all have in common is that Madeleine was not abducted and is no longer alive. She died in 5A, her body was concealed and there is a huge cover up with parental and involvement of others. We study the evidence that we are privy to and follow that. Stick around

by **crusader** 19.09.24 17:28

Come on Buzz Shine, we all have our theories, we know the Smiths saw someone that night, we just don't know who.
My opinions differ on some subjects, that's just the way it is, I don't try to change anyone's mind, I just say what I think and I am challenged.
The more we debate, the better in my opinion.
The Smith sighting always leads to lively debate, if you believe what you think happened, you must be prepared to be challenged and to answer questions put to you from members.
No malice is intended, stick with it.

by **crusader** 19.09.24 17:33

You won't find another forum as good as this in my opinion, it's lively and posters are still very enthusiastic about finding out what happened to Madeleine.

by Honesty 19.09.24 17:39

For the sake of clarity, could someone please explain in as few words as possible, i.e. a summary, of what caused such offence about Buzz Shine's comments?

Thank you.

Latest topics