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

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 13:27

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 13:54

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 14:32

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 15:01

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 15:27

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

by **Bluebagthepirate** 15.09.24 15:52

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 16:03

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 16:11

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 16:15

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 16:19

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 16:26

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 16:32

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 16:35

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 17:02

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 17:13

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 21:56

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 22:15

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 22:21

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 22:33

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 22:41

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.

by **PeterMac** 15.09.24 22:42

AnneCGuedes wrote:
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.

BUT at 1035pm [2235] on 3/5/7. No One knew she was missing, No one knew what she looked like, and no one knew what they were going to claim she was wearing.

The ‘Tannerman carrying a girl’ sketch came out a long time later, the photos of Madeleine as a MUCH younger girl were circulated over the next few days, the pool photo was not released for Three weeks, and even “eggman with parting” was not released to universal ridicule until several days later.

The Smiths saw a man carrying a girl. And that is IT. They had no reason to notice or Observe anything

They cannot say at that stage that she “resembled” anyone, because there was no one whom she could resemble
Which means they had no reason to remember anything about her, or him.
They were concentrating on getting home, getting some sleep, and getting the Son and his family off the next morning to the airport on time
and they saw a man with a girl.

Only much later can they look at one of more of the photos and sketches, at which point the best they can ever say is “I suppose It COULD have been her”
and that only if there was no overwhelming reason to be able to say it was not. Such as skin or hair colour or length, or other noticeable difference.

But that would apply to almost any average generic female child in PdL between the age of 3 and 5 being carried by almost any average generic father from ‘Central Casting’.

by Cake Lover 15.09.24 22:46

Bluebag posted, about removing Madeleine's body from the apartment, 'They have all the previous day, including the early hours'. It's a desperately sad crying shame that they weren't all forced to account for their movements during those hours, given that Goncalo Amaral was immediately suspicious of them.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 15.09.24 22:55

Cake Lover wrote:Bluebag posted, about removing Madeleine's body from the apartment, 'They have all the previous day, including the early hours'. It's a desperately sad crying shame that they weren't all forced to account for their movements during those hours, given that Goncalo Amaral was immediately suspicious of them.

Maybe soon they might have to.

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 23:05

The Smiths saw a man carrying a girl in the right place at the right time to fit the McCanns' staged abduction perfectly. And that's it.
The PJ had eliminated Tannerman by the time the McCanns were in contact with the Smiths. If Gerry was Smithman and he wanted to know what the Smiths had told the PJ, asking them if they'd help with e-fits would be an innocent looking way of going about it.. Finding out what the Smiths had told the PJ was all they got out of the exercise anyway. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick for all I know, but it never does anyone, any harm to think.

At the end of the day, they'd only be desperate to know what the Smiths had told the PJ if Gerry was Smithman.

by **AnneCGuedes** 15.09.24 23:32

Cake Lover wrote:Bluebag posted, about removing Madeleine's body from the apartment, 'They have all the previous day, including the early hours'. It's a desperately sad crying shame that they weren't all forced to account for their movements during those hours, given that Goncalo Amaral was immediately suspicious of them.

GA wasn't "immediately suspicious of them". Even after reading Lee Rainbow's report, he still suspected RM.

by **AnneCGuedes** 15.09.24 23:34

Buzz Shine wrote:The Smiths saw a man carrying a girl in the right place at the right time to fit the McCanns' staged abduction perfectly. And that's it.
The PJ had eliminated Tannerman by the time the McCanns were in contact with the Smiths. If Gerry was Smithman and he wanted to know what the Smiths had told the PJ, asking them if they'd help with e-fits would be an innocent looking way of going about it.. Finding out what the Smiths had told the PJ was all they got out of the exercise anyway. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick for all I know, but it never does anyone, any harm to think.

At the end of the day, they'd only be desperate to know what the Smiths had told the PJ if Gerry was Smithman.

They learned in July 2008 at the latest what the Smiths had told the PJ.

by Buzz Shine 15.09.24 23:39

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:The Smiths saw a man carrying a girl in the right place at the right time to fit the McCanns' staged abduction perfectly. And that's it.
The PJ had eliminated Tannerman by the time the McCanns were in contact with the Smiths. If Gerry was Smithman and he wanted to know what the Smiths had told the PJ, asking them if they'd help with e-fits would be an innocent looking way of going about it.. Finding out what the Smiths had told the PJ was all they got out of the exercise anyway. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick for all I know, but it never does anyone, any harm to think.

At the end of the day, they'd only be desperate to know what the Smiths had told the PJ if Gerry was Smithman.

They learned in July 2008 at the latest what the Smiths had told the PJ.

And they learned in September 2007, Tannerman just wasn't working for them. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, considering that to be a fact, rather than a thought.

by **AnneCGuedes** 16.09.24 0:13

Buzz Shine wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:The Smiths saw a man carrying a girl in the right place at the right time to fit the McCanns' staged abduction perfectly. And that's it.
The PJ had eliminated Tannerman by the time the McCanns were in contact with the Smiths. If Gerry was Smithman and he wanted to know what the Smiths had told the PJ, asking them if they'd help with e-fits would be an innocent looking way of going about it.. Finding out what the Smiths had told the PJ was all they got out of the exercise anyway. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick for all I know, but it never does anyone, any harm to think.

At the end of the day, they'd only be desperate to know what the Smiths had told the PJ if Gerry was Smithman.

They learned in July 2008 at the latest what the Smiths had told the PJ.
And they learned in September 2007, Tannerman just wasn't working for them. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, considering that to be a fact, rather than a thought.

They mainly learned, in September 2007, that the PJ suspected that the dogs' alerts were indicative of what actually happened. Hence their eagerness, as soon as they were back home, to find dogs that had been mistaken!

by Shash T 16.09.24 0:25

There were quite a few doctors milling around on that holiday. If any of them bumped into Gerry and said hello, surely any one of the doctors would recognise a dead child if they saw one. Gerry couldn't risk that.
So, I don't think Smithman was Gerry. The Smiths saw someone else totally unconnected to the case. In my opinion.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 0:49

Gerry isn't an idiot and Gerry wouldn't risk it doesn't tell us, who was an idiot and who did risk it at some point. Someone would have to risk it, if Madeleine died in the apartment. I don't think I am being unreasonable considering that to be a fact rather than a thought.

Latest topics