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

by AnneCGuedes 15.09.24 2:02

Nina wrote: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?

Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED - Page 2 Les_ba10

by Silentscope 15.09.24 7:28

Why would anyone hide a dead body under a Boat when they could never know if someone was going to use it soon, or when?

Not knowing if the Police where going to keep them in Custody at least for Questioning for Hours or Days afterwards?

Unlikely choice I think...

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 8:19

Buzz Shine wrote: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.

Did you ever mention this "time that Gerry would have looking for" before Peter so comprehensively demolished Gerry as Smithman?

Now you have Gerry being even more of an idiot wandering around with a child around restaurants and bars when there is mayhem afoot.

by **PeterMac** 15.09.24 9:12

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/

And as far as we know CB was at that time on his way to see his girlfiend/ lover/ Miss PepperSpray in Carvoeiro.

by Nina 15.09.24 9:19

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Nina wrote: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?

I would go there for quiet contemplation but many wouldn't. Was this area searched?

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 12:27

Martin Smith's 60%-80% isn't evidence of much value on it's own but he does attribute that 60%-80% to Gerry McCann. Still nothing there of any real value.

On the other hand, it would be difficult to argue, that the McCanns suppressing the Smith e-fits isn't evidence of certainty. Not 60%-80%, but rather 100%.

How could they possibly be so certain, if they didn't know who Smithman or the child was?

And if they didn't know, they still knew Madeleine still wasn't abducted. Surely logic dictates, the more red herrings the better, for anyone who is staging an abduction? Not just the McCanns.

by Shash T 15.09.24 12:54

I believe someone described Gerry as gregarious.
Even if Gerry didn't remember everyone he met and spoke to on the holiday, the chances are high, in my opinion, of the holiday maker remembering him.
So, I think, whatever day M died, Gerry would be running a massive risk of bumping into someone he had previously met and may want to stop for a quick hello.
So, the Smithman is not really relevant. All my opinion.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 13:32

Buzz Shine wrote:On the other hand, it would be difficult to argue, that the McCanns suppressing the Smith e-fits isn't evidence of certainty. Not 60%-80%, but rather 100%

I would argue that is nonsense.

They had Tannerman and they were not interested in any other fake narrative.

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 14:01

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:On the other hand, it would be difficult to argue, that the McCanns suppressing the Smith e-fits isn't evidence of certainty. Not 60%-80%, but rather 100%
I would argue that is nonsense.

They had Tannerman and they were not interested in any other fake narrative.

The McCanns had fled Portugal after the PJ had named them arguidos, so they were under no illusions when they went to the trouble of having the Smith e-fits drawn up, that the PJ were not buying Tannerman one little bit. Tannerman had been eliminated at the point as far as the PJ were concerned and the McCanns knew that. They couldn't not have understood that another new fake narrative was just what the doctor ordered by that point. A completely independent new fake narrative.

by crusader 15.09.24 14:27

Martin Smith said he hadn't done any e-fits.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 14:52

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:On the other hand, it would be difficult to argue, that the McCanns suppressing the Smith e-fits isn't evidence of certainty. Not 60%-80%, but rather 100%
I would argue that is nonsense.

They had Tannerman and they were not interested in any other fake narrative.
The McCanns had fled Portugal after the PJ had named them arguidos, so they were under no illusions when they went to the trouble of having the Smith e-fits drawn up, that the PJ were not buying Tannerman one little bit. Tannerman had been eliminated at the point as far as the PJ were concerned and the McCanns knew that. They couldn't not have understood that another new fake narrative was just what the doctor ordered by that point. A completely independent new fake narrative.

Having seen the e-fits they saw no advantage to them and carried on with their own fake narrative.
In fact what they saw muddied their own water for obvious reasons.
If the e-fits had looked like rastaman they might have used them.

There is no "100%" about the e-fits.

You didn't answer my previous question by the way.

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 15:03

One detective said he was ‘utterly stunned’ to see his five-year-old dossier suddenly presented as new on TV.
The investigator told a Sunday newspaper: ‘I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme... it most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things... and those E-fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 15:11

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

There is no "100%" about the e-fits.

We are absolutely 100% certain the McCanns never released the e-fits. Scotland Yard did it for them five years down the line.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 15:15

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:

There is no "100%" about the e-fits.
We are absolutely 100% certain the McCanns never released the e-fits. Scotland Yard did it for them five years down the line.

That's not what you said.

Shifty much?

You didn't answer my previous question.

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 15:19

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

You didn't answer my previous question.

I am new on here, I didn't have a chance to mention the time Gerry would have been looking for before. There is only one way to demolish Smithman, and that's to identify exactly who he is, if he isn't Gerry.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 15:26

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:

You didn't answer my previous question.
I am new on here, I didn't have a chance to mention the time Gerry would have been looking for before. There is only one way to demolish Smithman, and that's to identify exactly who he is, if he isn't Gerry.

I'm not asking if you ever mentioned it here.

Did you ever mention it ever before Peter demolished the Gerry as Smithman rubbish?

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 15:32

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:

You didn't answer my previous question.
I am new on here, I didn't have a chance to mention the time Gerry would have been looking for before. There is only one way to demolish Smithman, and that's to identify exactly who he is, if he isn't Gerry.
I'm not asking if you ever mentioned it here.

Did you ever mention it ever before Peter demolished the Gerry as Smithman rubbish?

I've never once stopped mentioning how critical time is to the possibility of Gerry being the man who passed the Smiths. Time is so crucial for the possibility to even exist. We can be 100% certain the first call to police was made at 22:41. I've always had my eye on time.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 15:35

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:

You didn't answer my previous question.
I am new on here, I didn't have a chance to mention the time Gerry would have been looking for before. There is only one way to demolish Smithman, and that's to identify exactly who he is, if he isn't Gerry.
I'm not asking if you ever mentioned it here.

Did you ever mention it ever before Peter demolished the Gerry as Smithman rubbish?
I've never once stopped mentioning how critical time is to the possibility of Gerry being the man who passed the Smiths. Time is so crucial for the possibility to even exist. We can be 100% certain the first call to police was made at 22:41. I've always had my eye on time.

I'll take that as a no then.

by AnneCGuedes 15.09.24 16:02

Nina wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
Nina wrote: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?

I would go there for quiet contemplation but many wouldn't. Was this area searched?

Not a beach but flat rocks with some grass, overlooking the ocean. I don't think that Smithman, if G, would have known this place though he had time (about 12') to leave M under the white boat called "algas" (seaweed) and return quickly to 5A (good hiding place but solving nothing). Everything is so close at PdL, my first impression when I went there. The mind represents a space differently through maps, perspectives and photos. It took me less than 6' to take that picture after leaving G5. Of course I only carried my rucksack !

by AnneCGuedes 15.09.24 16:13

Buzz Shine wrote:

On the other hand, it would be difficult to argue, that the McCanns suppressing the Smith e-fits isn't evidence of certainty. Not 60%-80%, but rather 100%.

Smithman cannot be disconnected from the child he is carrying. Yet the whole S family agreed that this little girl, whether asleep or not against her father's or not shoulder, resembled the increasingly ubiquitous photos of M.

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 20:56

It may only be circumstantial evidence but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence nevertheless. But due to the lack of publicity that Smithman hasn't ever come forward to identify himself, that's for sure.

If Smithman was Gerry, coming forward wasn't an option.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 21:15

Buzz Shine wrote:It may only be circumstantial evidence but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence nevertheless. But due to the lack of publicity that Smithman hasn't ever come forward to identify himself, that's for sure.

If Smithman was Gerry, coming forward wasn't an option.

That's not what you said earlier.

You said suppressing it meant it was was 100% Gerry.

So... you know have undisguised Gerry wandering around with a child in his arms near 5A, near an apartment complex, near bars and restaurants at 10.20 - 10.40 because Peter showed that the Smith statement timeline didn't work.

That's called moving the goalposts and now pretending you always thought it was that time is very silly.

You know it was bedlam at that time right?

Have you posted these timings on another Forum? The one on Facebook for instance? A presume you are a member of that group?

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 21:21

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:It may only be circumstantial evidence but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence nevertheless. But due to the lack of publicity that Smithman hasn't ever come forward to identify himself, that's for sure.

If Smithman was Gerry, coming forward wasn't an option.
That's not what you said earlier.

You said suppressing it meant it was was 100% Gerry.

So... you know have undisguised Gerry wandering around with a child in his arms near 5A, near an apartment complex, near bars and restaurants at 10.20 - 10.40 because Peter showed that the Smith statement timeline didn't work.

That's called moving the goalposts and now pretending you always thought it was that time is very silly.

You know it was bedlam at that time right?

Have you posted these timings on another Forum? The one on Facebook for instance? A presume you are a member of that group?

Gerry has always been 100% certain if he is Smithman or not and remains so to this day. As far as I am aware Smithman has never come forward to identify himself. If Madeleine did die in the apartment, it's difficult to comprehend who would have got her out, and how they would have gotten her body out the house, without carrying it. The Smiths didn't find anything suspicious about the man who walked passed them. They didn't think anything of the man who had a child covering his face.

by Bluebagthepirate 15.09.24 21:33

Buzz Shine wrote:

Gerry has always been 100% certain if he is Smithman or not and remains so to this day.

What??

As far as I am aware Smithman has never come forward to identify himself. If Madeleine did die in the apartment, it's difficult to comprehend who would have got her out, and how they would have gotten her body out the house, without carrying it.

It's not dificult, they have all the previous day including the early hours.

The Smiths didn't find anything suspicious about the man who walked passed them. They didn't think anything of the man who had a child covering his face.

Congratulations, you said something that makes sense.

They couldn't see his face, but then made e-fits, and then forgot it was Gerry by January 2008??

This all makes sense to you.

What do they think on the Facebook forum?

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 21:41

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:

Gerry has always been 100% certain if he is Smithman or not and remains so to this day.
What??

As far as I am aware Smithman has never come forward to identify himself. If Madeleine did die in the apartment, it's difficult to comprehend who would have got her out, and how they would have gotten her body out the house, without carrying it.
It's not dificult, they have all the previous day including the early hours.

The Smiths didn't find anything suspicious about the man who walked passed them. They didn't think anything of the man who had a child covering his face.
Congratulations, you said something that makes sense.

They couldn't see his face, but then made e-fits, and then forgot it was Gerry by January 2008??

This all makes sense to you.

What do they think on the Facebook forum?

We don't know if they had all the previous day and walking about with a child in the early hours looks even more suspicious. If Brent's right about the Wednesday night, they'd need all that day to get things prepared. The McCanns are the only ones who weren't at the Paraiso, they were too busy doing something else.

Latest topics