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

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.

by **Ladyinred** 19.09.24 17:52

Is it really worth the effort?

Buzz has left now. Onwards!

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 18:01

Honesty wrote: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.

Being disingenuous.

Pushchairs... Smith statements... squinty eyed view of witnesses after 10pm... moving goalposts after Peter showed Smith was wrong about the time...

Not offensive, just dishonest and some piss taking.

by **AnneCGuedes** 19.09.24 18:16

crusader wrote:
The Smith sighting always leads to lively debate

How do you explain this phenomenon among people who aren't convinced that M was abducted ?

by **crusader** 19.09.24 18:47

The Smiths saw was they thought could have been an abductor taking Madeleine away in her pyjamas.
It was only when they saw saw Gerry alighting the aeroplane they thought it could have been him.
If it wasn't for Martin Smith making a 2nd statement to that effect, would people doubt what he said in his first statement?
I think people latched on to the 2nd statement and believed it was Gerry the Smiths saw.
A lot of people, including me, never thought Madeleine had been abducted from the start.
After the release of the PJ files and seeing the Smith family statements, Smithman became a hot topic and for good reason.
I think there is no evidence of an abduction but there is plenty of evidence of a cover up.
After reading the Smiths 2nd statements, I was convinced it was Gerry, now I'm not so sure, but I'm not completely ruling him out.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 18:58

Crusader, what time do you think the Smith sighting was?

When did Kate kick off?

What time did they stage the abduction?

Just interested why you are not ruling Gerry out after all that?

by **crusader** 19.09.24 19:50

Martin Peter and Aoife all agree it was around 10pm when they saw the man with the child, who am I to say they are wrong, they could have rounded the time up of course.
I cannot contradict them, they were there and that is what they saw and that is the time they said.
I cannot pick parts of their statements to suit what I believe, I either believe what they say or I don't.
As for when Kate kicked off, I can only go off when people were out looking for Madeleine, although there is plenty of evidence to say it was before 10pm.
I can't rule Gerry out, because I'm not yet convinced something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 20:04

Logic and the time on the bills say it wasn't 10pm.

Peter has analysed this correctly I think.

The dogs and the cadaverine say it wasn't that evening.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 20:06

Oh... and as for the other smiths on the time.. who is going to disagree with dad?

by **crusader** 19.09.24 20:21

I'm really sorry not to agree with Peter's analysis, I feel bad but I cant help what I think.
I'm sure we discussed cadaverine somewhere, doesn't it start at the moment of death?
If Madeleine had died soon after the high tea, I'm sure if she had laid there even a couple of hours the dog's would have detected it but I'm no expert.
Is Martin Smith not a nice man or a man who imposes his will on his family, I believe him to be the former.

by **crusader** 19.09.24 20:25

Are you insinuating Martin Smith told Peter and Aoife what to put in their statements?

by **AnneCGuedes** 19.09.24 20:34

crusader wrote:The Smiths saw was they thought could have been an abductor taking Madeleine away in her pyjamas.

MS never saw an abductor, but a child carrier, assuming they were father and daughter.
PS, 10 after, remembered their crossing a M like child, he talked to his father, the whole family met. The idea that the carrier could be the abductor (since that was the doxa) started to grow and they resolved to inform the police.

All that seems normal. Why then so much controversy about the Smith sighting. It started with GA who mainly asked the S to return to PdL because he hoped they would recognise the arguido RM. Months later Joao Carlos didn't even include the S in the reconstitution attempt.

by **AnneCGuedes** 19.09.24 20:36

10 days, sorry, edition not possible, why ?

by Verity 19.09.24 20:46

Jojo1 wrote: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"

There's also some bloke on facebook who has completely highjacked this group for his own Smithman agenda. Is this the bloke you mean?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/goncaloamaralmaddiebastadementiras

by **crusader** 19.09.24 20:55

If Martin Smith saw what he thought was a man carrying his daughter, why would he contact the Portuguese police to tell them what he saw.
He didn't think it was Gerry at that time, he thought the man wasn't a tourist.
So did he think the police could eliminate them,
or did he think in hindsight, 10 day's later, the man could have been abducting Madeleine?

by **AnneCGuedes** 19.09.24 21:15

crusader wrote:If Martin Smith saw what he thought was a man carrying his daughter, why would he contact the Portuguese police to tell them what he saw.
He didn't think it was Gerry at that time, he thought the man wasn't a tourist.
So did he think the police could eliminate them,
or did he think in hindsight, 10 day's later, the man could have been abducting Madeleine?

When MS called the police, it was the result of a family meeting where they all agreed the carried child looked very much like M's photos. I find it a very normal reason to call the police, though the police told MS that a child carrier wasn't an exceptionnal sighting (when I was in PdL I met no child carrier at night). Anyway MS reported and that would have been all IF GA, hearing this, hadn't thought he had perhaps a chance to catch up RM.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 21:18

crusader wrote:Are you insinuating Martin Smith told Peter and Aoife what to put in their statements?

I am.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 21:19

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
crusader wrote:Are you insinuating Martin Smith told Peter and Aoife what to put in their statements?
I am.

How else could they all have the wrong time?

MS was the driver here.

by **crusader** 19.09.24 21:20

If I'd seen what the Smiths saw, I would have contacted the police too.
I wasn't aware they contacted the police after seeing photo's of Madeleine, interesting.

by **crusader** 19.09.24 21:23

I don't believe that to be the case Bluebag.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 19.09.24 21:23

crusader wrote:If Martin Smith saw what he thought was a man carrying his daughter, why would he contact the Portuguese police to tell them what he saw.
He didn't think it was Gerry at that time, he thought the man wasn't a tourist.
So did he think the police could eliminate them,
or did he think in hindsight, 10 day's later, the man could have been abducting Madeleine?

It really is irrelevant.

As Peter said weeks ago.

Latest topics