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

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?

by crusader 16.09.24 9:06

I would be interested to know how the bill is paid in Kelly's bar.
For instance, do you order and pay at the bar, as pubs in England, or is it waiter service.
The till roll from Kelly's bar was obtained by the police on 10th October and shows the till receipts.
The bills starting at 21-39 would fit in with the Smith visit.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 9:11

Bluebagthepirate wrote: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?

My arguments are purely about possibilities, I'm not arguing about certainties. That would be foolish on my part.

I have one witness who didn't see anything at 22:00, but she was the only witness who was exact about the time. None of the other witnesses report checking the exact time on the telephone.

It's possible the witness who was exact about the time, didn't see anything at 22:00, because the other witnesses who'd given an earlier time, were wrong about the time. Them being out with 30-60 minutes, isn't beyond the realms of possibility the way the human memory works.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 9:16

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote: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?
My arguments are purely about possibilities, I'm not arguing about certainties. That would be foolish on my part.

I have one witness who didn't see anything at 22:00, but she was the only witness who was exact about the time. None of the other witnesses report checking the exact time on the telephone.

It's possible the witness who was exact about the time, didn't see anything at 22:00, because the other witnesses who'd given an earlier time, were wrong about the time. Them being out with 30-60 minutes, isn't beyond the realms of possibility the way the human memory works.

Everything points to 22.00 or before - not EVERYONE was mistaken.

The witnesses you gave have reasonable explanations.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 9:22

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote: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?
My arguments are purely about possibilities, I'm not arguing about certainties. That would be foolish on my part.

I have one witness who didn't see anything at 22:00, but she was the only witness who was exact about the time. None of the other witnesses report checking the exact time on the telephone.

It's possible the witness who was exact about the time, didn't see anything at 22:00, because the other witnesses who'd given an earlier time, were wrong about the time. Them being out with 30-60 minutes, isn't beyond the realms of possibility the way the human memory works.
Everything points to 22.00 or before - not EVERYONE was mistaken.

The witnesses you gave have reasonable explanations.

Everything doesn't point to 22:00 or before. I posted the statements from the witnesses who suggest it was after. It's impossible to discern if the befores are more reliable than the afters, and vice versa from what I have seen.

There is only one witness who is exact about time and her evidence doesn't support the befores.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 9:26

They don't suggest that at all.

I've already said why. How is your understanding going?

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 9:32

Bluebagthepirate wrote:They don't suggest that at all.

I've already said why. How is your understanding going?

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

I still can't understand how anyone can be certain he is one who is wrong.

Nor can I understand why Gerry would be the first to run to the Tapas Bar he had just left. He knew for a fact Madeleine wasn't in there at that time.

by crusader 16.09.24 9:39

The Smith sighting is either irrelevant or hugely significant.
The Smiths think it was Gerry although they won't commit to a positive identification.
So it either was Gerry, Or.
It was a decoy to make it look like Madeleine was being abducted on that night.
It was an innocent man and not a tourist walking with his own inappropriately dressed child in his arms.
Or it was Madeleine being abducted by a stranger.
The only significant fact here is the Smith family saw a man with a child at the time when Madeleine was missing and the child was dressed in a similar way to what Madeleine was said to be wearing.
The day Madeleine disappeared is in dispute and the Smith sighting put's the focus of the disappearance at 3rd May.
It's the fly in the ointment.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 9:45

crusader wrote:The Smith sighting is either irrelevant or hugely significant.
The Smiths think it was Gerry although they won't commit to a positive identification.
So it either was Gerry, Or.
It was a decoy to make it look like Madeleine was being abducted on that night.
It was an innocent man and not a tourist walking with his own inappropriately dressed child in his arms.
Or it was Madeleine being abducted by a stranger.
The only significant fact here is the Smith family saw a man with a child at the time when Madeleine was missing and the child was dressed in a similar way to what Madeleine was said to be wearing.
The day Madeleine disappeared is in dispute and the Smith sighting put's the focus of the disappearance at 3rd May.
It's the fly in the ointment.

I've never look at Smithman as evidence of what day Madeleine died. There is evidence to suggest she may have been in the wardrobe at some point. If she was, that would mean she was hidden in the wardrobe, not disposed of right away.

by crusader 16.09.24 10:05

I'm not convinced Madeleine was ever in the wardrobe, it could be argued if the bag in the wardrobe was used to remove her from the apartment and that is why Eddie signalled there.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 10:20

crusader wrote:I'm not convinced Madeleine was ever in the wardrobe, it could be argued if the bag in the wardrobe was used to remove her from the apartment and that is why Eddie signalled there.

And the scent of the cadaver coming from the bag in the wardrobe, rather than the body in the wardrobe would be a fair argument to make.

I'm not suggesting Gerry is a weakling but all you have to do is put 16kgs in a bag and try to carry it with one hand for yourself. It would be noticeable IMO.

by Ladyinred 16.09.24 10:39

Did Gerry carry the bag on his own. Perhaps he had assistance?

by crusader 16.09.24 10:48

Gerry would have had to carry the bag containing Madeleine in his arms, he was no strongman, no way could he carry a child weighing over 2 stone in a bag in one hand.
If the bag carrying happened during the day and 2 of them carried it, nobody would bat an eyelid because at that time Madeleine wasn't missing so nobody was looking at anyone with suspicion.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 10:55

Why so much emphasis on the bag and not a suitcase? They could wheel a suitcase around PDL with one hand and no-one would bat an eye-lid. It's probably because there was a bag and not a suitcase in the wardrobe.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 11:26

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

There's no way of telling how it looks for Gerry being Smithman. No-one knows how far Smithman went after he walked passed the Smiths. It's not unreasonable to presume anyone carrying a child in their arms hasn't got that far to go.

by crusader 16.09.24 11:35

As I've said before, There would be no need for a bag or a suitcase to remove Madeleine.
All that would be needed was a pushchair, nobody is going to take any notice of someone pushing a sleeping child around Praia da Luz, no matter what time it was, day or night.

Latest topics