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

by **PeterMac** 15.09.24 21:42

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 21:46

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 21:55

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 22:05

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 22:32

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 22:34

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 22:39

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 15.09.24 23:13

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 15.09.24 23:25

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 15.09.24 23:49

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.

by Shash T 15.09.24 23:58

In Bernt's book, he suggests that M was carried away in the blue sports bagbag.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 0:03

I'm not convinced myself that Madeleine would have fitted in the sports bag and even if she did, I'm not convinced it would be easy to carry for any great distance. Doesn't mean to say I'm right, looks can be deceiving. Even the graveyard wasn't just next door.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 0:13

Age Estimated weight
4 years 16 kg

16 kgs is still pretty heavy to carry in one hand.

by AnneCGuedes 16.09.24 0:15

Open from 9 am to 5 pm. Jump over the wall ?

[img]

by AnneCGuedes 16.09.24 0:18

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 6:50

Buzz Shine wrote: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.

Completely ignoring risk factors.

Early hours previous day v mayhem time when all kinds are out and about?

Its a not difficult.

You're not convinced by the sports bag... well maybe she was carried like a sleeping child, doesn't matter. I think the sports bag is a strong possibility,

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 6:53

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.

What time was this "right time"?

by **PeterMac** 16.09.24 7:21

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.

Not really "IT'
The McCann's staged abduction MUST have been – on their timing – between 9.25 and 9.27pm -ish
5A front door to Smithmin-site is 7 minutes ±3
Which puts the "Abductor" at Smithman-site at 9.35 - ish
NOT 10:35

An HOUR too early

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 7:25

Ah Peter I was waiting for Buzz to move the goal posts again.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 8:21

There is no CCTV from anywhere to give exact times for anything. I'm a little wet behind the ears but why does the McCanns staged abduction MUST have to be between 9.25 and 9.27pm -ish? How can anything they say about time be considered conclusive? We know they don't tell the truth.

I'd like to emphasise that all I am looking for here is healthy debate, I am not interested in confrontation. If for nothing else, to help my own understanding of Smithman, if not anyone else's.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 8:25

Why?

Because that's when they staged it - Kate discovery is at between 9.30 and 10.00 depending on witness, abduction is prior.

Not at 10.30 pm

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 8:40

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Why?

Because that's when they staged it - Kate discovery is at between 9.30 and 10.00 depending on witness, abduction is prior.

Not at 10.30 pm

It depends on which witnesses you are talking about.

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone. The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm

Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic.

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm

And then there is a resident who is the only witness that I know of, who is exact about time.
Declares further that on the night 03-05-07, she left the apartment at around 21H58?she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge. After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm

According to that witness, there was no evidence of Kate's discovery before 22:00. That doesn't mean the witness isn't wrong but it doesn't mean she isn't right either. All it does it give time a different perspective.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 8:51

Seriously?

You are arguing that the commotion kicked off after 10.00?

The chef was in the kitchen when it happened.

You have one witness that didn't see anything in contradiction to lots of others who did? Were they all inside 5A or the other side at the time she passed? How long did that take her? 30 seconds?

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 8:53

Buzz Shine wrote: If for nothing else, to help my own understanding of Smithman, if not anyone else's.

Has your understanding changed any in the last couple of days?

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 8:59

Bluebagthepirate wrote:You have one witness that didn't see anything in contradiction to lots of others who did? Were they all inside 5A or the other side at the time she passed? How long did that take her? 30 seconds?

Or even... at 21:58 plus a couple of minutes, Kate was in the Tapas area and no one had left there yet but were just about to head to 5A.

You know your kitchen witness saying he saw Gerry appear at 10.20 doesn't look good for Gerry being Smithman?

Latest topics