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

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.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 11:43

crusader wrote: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.

That's a very good point that I do agree with. The logic is there. What I would say about a pushchair though, is it's impossible to hold it up to hide your face.

I just wish the family who produced the e-fits for the McCanns, had walked passed a man pushing a child in a pushchair. It would have been oh so much less confusing IMO.

by Cammerigal 16.09.24 12:11

Buzz Shine wrote:
crusader wrote: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.
That's a very good point that I do agree with. The logic is there. What I would say about a pushchair though, is it's impossible to hold it up to hide your face.

I just wish the family who produced the e-fits for the McCanns, had walked passed a man pushing a child in a pushchair. It would have been oh so much less confusing IMO.

Smithman sighting is very confusing, by design. See the dark fingerprints of the ''fat controller"
@PeterMac has clearly demonstrated by timing analysis in Chapter 63 it doesn't stack up, like the time date stamps on the 'last photo', which also don't stack up.
The only question now is why one still pursues this distractive, elusive rabbit down a proverbial rabbit hole?

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 12:27

Cammerigal wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
crusader wrote: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.
That's a very good point that I do agree with. The logic is there. What I would say about a pushchair though, is it's impossible to hold it up to hide your face.

I just wish the family who produced the e-fits for the McCanns, had walked passed a man pushing a child in a pushchair. It would have been oh so much less confusing IMO.
Smithman sighting is very confusing, by design. See the dark fingerprints of the ''fat controller"
@PeterMac has clearly demonstrated by timing analysis in Chapter 63 it doesn't stack up, like the time date stamps on the 'last photo', which also don't stack up.
The only question now is why one still pursues this distractive, elusive rabbit down a proverbial rabbit hole?

The reason people still pursue Smithman, is because he still hasn't been identified. There are only two times that are definitive at best. The witness who said she was sure of the exact time of 21:58 because she checked the time on the telephone in the lounge before leaving and the 22:41 they called the police. There are no exact times for anything else, everything else is wild guesswork. I'm only interested in learning the truth, who is right and wrong doesn't matter to me.

by Nina 16.09.24 12:36

Buzz Shine wrote: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.

Maybe something like this? A bag but with inbuilt wheels. There are many to choose from online.

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8356419?istCompanyId=a74d8886-5df9-4baa-b776-166b3bf9111c&istFeedId=30f62ea9-9626-4cac-97c8-9ff3921f8558&istItemId=ixilqiaax&istBid=t&&cmpid=GS001&_$ja=tsid:59157%7Cacid:629-618-1342%7Ccid:20368875273%7Cagid:%7Ctid:%7Ccrid:%7Cnw:x%7Crnd:7569154561000520905%7Cdvc:c%7Cadp:%7Cmt:%7Cloc:1006841&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=20368875273&utm_term=8356419&utm_content=shopping&utm_custom1=&utm_custom2=629-618-1342&GPDP=true&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwrp-3BhDgARIsAEWJ6SwW9yjweYtKIcLlSkC2tSnCuW-zLLgjgOWuleYEWZL2_qt0XsDRGdQaAvwTEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

by pinkgladioli 16.09.24 12:48

Thats the kind of bag I was thinking of too!
There is a video of GM leaving the villa they rented with what looks like a dark coloured bag in the hire car,
You’ll find the video clip by typing in the search box on YouTube
@alvesdosreis2007
Click on the round profile pic the click on videos scroll and you’ll find it
along with other quite interesting video clips

by pinkgladioli 16.09.24 12:54

Look for the video clip called
RTP Telejornal: PJ flies to UK at 1.26/1.27 in the clip what looks like a bag appears in the back of the hire car

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:48

Buzz Shine wrote:
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.

He's not wrong.

You haven't read his statement correctly. He was elsewhere before 22.20 and noticed this when he came on the scene.

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.

You have very limited powers of imagination.

Who said he was first? This was the time the witness observed Gerry entering the Tapas Bar for any number of reasons.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:50

Buzz Shine wrote:

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

It doesn't not support it.

For reasons already stated which you chose to ignore.

You don't seen willing to help you understanding of this.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:53

Buzz Shine wrote:
crusader wrote: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.
That's a very good point that I do agree with. The logic is there. What I would say about a pushchair though, is it's impossible to hold it up to hide your face.

Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?

Someone has just pointed out how a body could be moved around any time and you rule it out because it's not Smithman.

I thought you were trying to increase your understanding?

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:55

Buzz Shine wrote:

The reason people still pursue Smithman, is because he still hasn't been identified. There are only two times that are definitive at best. The witness who said she was sure of the exact time of 21:58 because she checked the time on the telephone in the lounge before leaving and the 22:41 they called the police. There are no exact times for anything else, everything else is wild guesswork. I'm only interested in learning the truth, who is right and wrong doesn't matter to me.

Do you have fingers in your ears?

It doesn't appear to me you are interested in learning the truth.

It's Smithman and only Smithman for you and any amount of mental gymnastics is ok by you to carry on the argument.

Latest topics