Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by Smokeandmirrors 05.11.13 21:27

If all the Smiths had one soft drink each, I still think their bill would be higher than any of those in the timeframe. They could have bought drinks in more than one round.

So it poses the question if they were ever even in that bar. Are there any witness statements from others in Kelly's bar who can verify their being there?

Tony, the mist is clearing as to the bee in your bonnet. Or should I say hornet? winkwink

by justathought 05.11.13 21:28

Mr de Boils
the challange about the till receipts could be seen as like cracking an enigma code. look at the denomitions of till receipts for the night
Euro 1 , 1.25, 1.50 etc!

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 21:30

whmon wrote:We're actually going down the wrong track. A schema is not an assumption, and it is not something the brain constructs as a detail. A schema is a 'blueprint' for coping with the world. For example, in the UK we have a schema for washing the dishes that is quite unlike other countries methods of washing dishes.

I said assumption OR schema..I did not say they were the same thing.

by Lance De Boils 05.11.13 21:30

About to start new thread on this. One moment.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 21:51

Lance De Boils wrote:
I've been looking at these receipts myself.

I don't think it likely that the family paid individually. Although not impossible, I'd plump for them paying together. If bars in Portugal work the same as most other countries, except the UK, it is normal to pay just before leaving.

The receipts that look most likely to be the Smiths' are (based on the prices) imo:

21:39 (Eu 13.75 Bar) <--- that's the one closest to the given time.

But, had the Smiths' made a mistake? (Intentionally or otherwise?) Had they gone for a drink or two BEFORE heading to the restaurant? If so, these are possibilities:

20:26 (Eu 24.50 Bar)
20:01 (Eu 18.25 Bar)

Or just popped in for cigarettes?
20:15 (Eu 3.15 cigarettes)

Or were their times an hour too early? If so, these:

22:47 (Eu 11.00 Bar)
22:53 (Eu 16.50 Bar)

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Smiths' sighting timing is not right.

The other possibility that really must be considered is that they were not in Kelly's Bar at all that night.

The bar manager/owner was asked if he could remember a family of nine with several young children being in his bar for half-an-hour to an hour on Thursday 3 May - and he couldn't. Admittedly to recollect one evening four months ago is not easy - though it was a memorable night in Praia da Luz, and quite possibly news of a missing child might have spread to Kelly's Bar before their closing time (after midnight).

The Smiths have not said what drinks were ordered and when they paid.

Nothing stands out on the bill as being obviously theirs.

by galena 05.11.13 22:04

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Thank you very much.

I believe that that is the correct answer and one that a neurologist would also give.

What you are saying is that your brain remembers a few details - and then 'makes up' the rest.

If there ever was a genuine 'sighting' (which I doubt), no doubt Martin Smith's 'brain' made up the stuff about seeing Gerry McCann.
There are variations though..of course if you witness something 'out of the ordinary' you would be more likely to take in more detail. A man carrying a child, even if in a blanket/pjs in a holiday resort, I doubt would be 'out of the ordinary' enough to start alarm bells ringing for our brain to 'take note' I wouldnt have thought.

Wasn't that why the whole 'recovered memory' thing was discredited? It was found in some cases that far from recovering deeply buried memories new memories were being implanted by the therapy.

I'm inclined to think that both the Smith family and Tanner may well have seen someone carrying a child - or carrying something at any rate and their mind filled in the rest of the details. I think we need to be sceptical of all witnesses in this case - the Richard McCluskey example shows clearly how people can jump to conclusions and the human memory is far from infallible ...

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 22:10

Smokeandmirrors wrote:If all the Smiths had one soft drink each, I still think their bill would be higher than any of those in the timeframe. They could have bought drinks in more than one round.

So it poses the question if they were ever even in that bar. Are there any witness statements from others in Kelly's bar who can verify their being there?

Tony, the mist is clearing as to the bee in your bonnet. Or should I say hornet?

'Smokeandmirrors', thank you, and I understand - and I never forget your most appropriate username.

By the way, I am neither a bee nor a hornet.

But I might agree to 'stirring up a hornet's nest':

per Merriam-Webster:

"His comments stirred up a hornet's nest of angry opposition and criticism..."

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 22:14

galena wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:
There are variations though...of course if you witness something 'out of the ordinary' you would be more likely to take in more detail. A man carrying a child, even if in a blanket/pjs in a holiday resort, I doubt would be 'out of the ordinary' enough to start alarm bells ringing for our brain to 'take note' I wouldn't have thought.
Wasn't that why the whole 'recovered memory' thing was discredited? It was found in some cases that far from recovering deeply buried memories new memories were being implanted by the therapy.

Indeed.

Therapists - who have great power over vulnerable people - were claiming to be able to take people back to the ages of 4, 3, 2, even 1 - and 'remember' being abused.

This caused havoc as professionals intervened on such slender 'evidence'.

by Smokeandmirrors 05.11.13 22:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:If all the Smiths had one soft drink each, I still think their bill would be higher than any of those in the timeframe. They could have bought drinks in more than one round.

So it poses the question if they were ever even in that bar. Are there any witness statements from others in Kelly's bar who can verify their being there?

Tony, the mist is clearing as to the bee in your bonnet. Or should I say hornet?
'Smokeandmirrors', thank you, and I understand - and I never forget your most appropriate username.

By the way, I am neither a bee nor a hornet.

But I might agree to 'stirring up a hornet's nest':

per Merriam-Webster:

"His comments stirred up a hornet's nest of angry opposition and criticism..."

Goodness Tony, if I am tapping into your line of thought properly here, if it is so, then it would lead to a total meltdown.

by noddy100 05.11.13 22:37

Maybe no matter how the smiths described it how little detail etc Oakley had already realised from their investigations what the deal was and so produced something resembling Gerry to help nail him

by Lance De Boils 05.11.13 22:47

Seperate thread now about the drinks receipts: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8436-the-time-of-the-alleged-smith-sighting-the-till-receipts-that-don-t-tally

by chillyheat 05.11.13 22:48

I would like that poll to be redone. But...only after everyone has read the statements of ALL the Smiths..... Most ticked it was Gerry McCann based solely on the efit released by SY. We don't know if the Smiths made those efits.....Its SY wanting you to think they have.
I get the feeling SY are taking this far away from the OC. I don't doubt the Smiths seeing someone, but for me it is not Gerry McCann. Do you honestly think he would risk running around a resort.....
SY have simply planted the seed, and its flowering...

by loopzdaloop 06.11.13 0:59

galena wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
sonic72 wrote:I don't think people are claiming the Smith's are lying, just that the person they saw might not have much relevance.

Personally I think Gerry and co would not have carried a dead child through the streets, he/they would have concealed her in something, perhaps the blue bag that has been talked about.

It's too high risk if you are trying to claim the child was abducted.

This is why I personally feel Smithman is no relevance to this in the grand scheme of things..

Any thoughts?
I agree - if you believe the Smithman sighting is of GMcC you have to also believe that GMcC took this risk despite having bumped into JW about 40 mins earlier. Surely that would have made you feel that this was a v. high risk strategy! How could you be sure you wouldn't bump into him again, or some other holiday acquaintance?
I have to agree that with you on this and am kind of wondering what could have made Gerry take such a high risk strategy of carrying a child's body around PDL, without even the precaution of placing it in a bag of some sort? Some argue that it would seem more natural to carry a 'sleeping' child but if he had to hide the body when he met with JW and then get JT to invent 'bundleman' to cover his encounter with the Smiths clearly it was a strategy which would only work if he met nobody - which seems unlikely in the circumstances. (And it could have been worse, the Smiths might have gone to the PJ the very next day with the sighting when their memories would have been fresh).

People are arguing that an abductor would never have taken the risk of carrying a child like that - so why would GM take that risk either?

I wouldn't go as far as Tony in saying that the story is made up but I don't feel convinced enough of its veracity to incorporate it into any theories. If it is true, I can only say that the whole idea of a Tapas conspiracy must be wrong and that Kate and Gerry must have acted alone. Tannerman very likely did exist and JT really believed that she had seen the abductor. I simply can't believe that a group of highly intelligent professional people wouldn't be able to come up with a better way of body disposal than the father carrying the child in pyjamas throughout a resort from 21.30 - 2200 hrs at a time when people were likely to still be around.

It wasn't a body though, it was their 'sleeping' child. Even the mccanns aren't cold enough to shove their child into a bag straight away. the bag was photographed and later disappeared. Someone had the idea of utilising the bag later. I bet to transport an item in the scenic"

by Cristobell 06.11.13 1:02

Comparing the two sightings on the night of the 3rd - their are similarities that are quite bizarre. In both cases, the child was unconscious, wearing only pyjamas, not covered by a blanket or a dressing gown, and with bare feet.

I think we are all agreed, it is highly unlikely that a parent would carry their sleeping child from the creche into the cold night air, in the manner described. Babies and toddlers come with lots of baggage, favourite toy, bottle/cup, buggy, change of clothes, blanket etc. Neither sighting sounds like a genuine father carrying their child home.

Up until recently, no-one had come forward in 6.5 years claiming to have carried a child through PDL on night of 3rd May, and I'm not convinced anyone has, even now. The two descriptions match on the crucial points, the child appeared 'abducted'. That is the child had been taken straight from its bed, dressed only in its pyjamas and the 'father' had none of the expected child in transit accessories.

What are the chances of two men walking around PDL that night, each showing no nurturing tendencies whatsoever to the child they were carrying? Someone is clearly lying so the two descriptions match, that is, a man carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas, who had clearly just been lifted out of bed. One sighting must have known about the other sighting, and one sighting must be real. We know which one the police have eliminated.

I can see no reason whatsoever for a large family on holiday to incriminate themselves in a heinous crime involved a young child. Just not buying it. If Gerry was the man the Smith family saw, he saw them too. That would be reason enough to create another sighting that proved it couldn't possibly be Gerry because he was standing in the street talking to Jez when man walked by with shoeless child. However, given the hash Jane Tanner made of the re-telling, no-one believed her anyway. The Tanner lead was followed on the McCanns' insistence and Goncalo Amaral was removed as he was arranging to bring the Smith family back out to PDL. Now we have just discovered that not only did the McCanns file away the Exton report and efits, they took action to prevent them ever becoming public. I keep thinking anyday now something will happen, and the papers are keeping us on our toes with all these bizarre McCann stories. There is no way Goncalo Amaral can lose now, there wasn't before, but the suppressed report is the original smoking gun for his Defence. We've waited this long, but I honestly do think the end is in sight.

by loopzdaloop 06.11.13 1:28

I just want to say I agree with christobell entirely throughout this thread.
Where I'm at now is that I'm sure the smiths are accurate in their assessment and in psychological science 60-80% is nearer to significance than it is null. Tanner was utilised to discredit smith sighting hence the similarities. The mccanns have strong form for covering their tracks from actually getting the bleach out to being quite specific about sea bass and tea stains. The fact is there was a body, hence the dogs and it left the apartment somehow. It was placed in the flowered and it later turned up in the scenic. I am also sure that 'finding' tanner man was to throw a spanner in the works and I look forward to seeing this progress.

by columbostogeys 06.11.13 6:56

Cristobell wrote:Comparing the two sightings on the night of the 3rd - their are similarities that are quite bizarre. In both cases, the child was unconscious, wearing only pyjamas, not covered by a blanket or a dressing gown, and with bare feet.

I think we are all agreed, it is highly unlikely that a parent would carry their sleeping child from the creche into the cold night air, in the manner described. Babies and toddlers come with lots of baggage, favourite toy, bottle/cup, buggy, change of clothes, blanket etc. Neither sighting sounds like a genuine father carrying their child home.

Up until recently, no-one had come forward in 6.5 years claiming to have carried a child through PDL on night of 3rd May, and I'm not convinced anyone has, even now. The two descriptions match on the crucial points, the child appeared 'abducted'. That is the child had been taken straight from its bed, dressed only in its pyjamas and the 'father' had none of the expected child in transit accessories.

What are the chances of two men walking around PDL that night, each showing no nurturing tendencies whatsoever to the child they were carrying? Someone is clearly lying so the two descriptions match, that is, a man carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas, who had clearly just been lifted out of bed. One sighting must have known about the other sighting, and one sighting must be real. We know which one the police have eliminated.

I can see no reason whatsoever for a large family on holiday to incriminate themselves in a heinous crime involved a young child. Just not buying it. If Gerry was the man the Smith family saw, he saw them too. That would be reason enough to create another sighting that proved it couldn't possibly be Gerry because he was standing in the street talking to Jez when man walked by with shoeless child. However, given the hash Jane Tanner made of the re-telling, no-one believed her anyway. The Tanner lead was followed on the McCanns' insistence and Goncalo Amaral was removed as he was arranging to bring the Smith family back out to PDL. Now we have just discovered that not only did the McCanns file away the Exton report and efits, they took action to prevent them ever becoming public. I keep thinking anyday now something will happen, and the papers are keeping us on our toes with all these bizarre McCann stories. There is no way Goncalo Amaral can lose now, there wasn't before, but the suppressed report is the original smoking gun for his Defence. We've waited this long, but I honestly do think the end is in sight.

A very good piece Cristobell.

I never thought for one moment anyone with half a brain would walk a child through PDL at 9.15 or 10pm without a blanket or fully clothed, and would be carrying a bag for favorite toys drinks and stuff. From what i read of the night creche, the kids were dropped off to let the parents eat, and they would play etc and then if picking up late would fall asleep....they would be warm and snuggly.

PDL in late April/May at night is quite chilly, far too cold to carry a child just dressed in flimsy jammies.....

I always knew about the sighting of the Smiths it was quite common knowledge but was carter rucked as they dared to say it was GM.

I wonder if the Smiths were off with their timing.....when i go out i havent got a clue what time i come home lol....

Anyway I never believed the JT sighting never...THANKS for you writing you always make sense.

by StraightThinking 06.11.13 8:12

All this information has been in the public domain for over 5 years, and nobody has ever questioned the integrity of the Smiths before

Yes, any of them may have made errors of identification, but that isn't the same thing as accusing them of being liars

They saw someone, whoever it was, and that someone has never come forward, so the sighting is significant

Funny that it should happen just after SY propelled Smithman to the top of the sighting charts

The timing of this looks suspicious, and so does the fact that certain posters are gradually being "won over" by some of the crazy arguments on this thread and the other one

There is no convincing motive for the Smiths all lying, nor was there ever one, so it's a waste of time looking at till receipts and trying to manufacture one

by tracey1270 06.11.13 8:18

StraightThinking wrote:All this information has been in the public domain for over 5 years, and nobody has ever questioned the integrity of the Smiths before

Funny that it should happen just after SY propelled Smithman to the top of the sighting charts

The timing of this looks suspicious, and so does the fact that certain posters are gradually being "won over" by some of the crazy arguments on this
thread

There is no convicing motive for the Smiths all lying, nor was there ever one, so it's a waste of time looking at till receipts and trying to manufacture one

I think looking for till receipts is a waste of time also, you are never going to get to the bottom of that one, I don't think they lied, I just don't think they saw Gerry Mcann and like I said on another thread the man seen if not just someone on their way home was maybe a ruse orchestrated by the Mcann's so that if anyone pointed the finger at Gerry, he was somewhere else, sounds a bit nuts but I wouldn't put it past the Mcann's to have had this planned. I think Madeleine came to a tragic end on the 2nd, the Mcann's and at least 1 of the Tapas lot had time to plan in advance, Madeleine was probably in the wardrobe until they had it sorted..no way would gerry mcann risk taking a dead child out into the street, way too risky, they are manipulative and very clever those two..not hard if the money is right to get people to do your dirty work, even hiring someone to walk down the road with a child in similar clothes to Gerry's. I think the similarities are because it was staged beforehand that is why JT said the child was barefoot and so did smithman..he saw the decoy..I know I'm nuts but just a theory.

by soundworks 06.11.13 8:38

maybe Gerry thought that was the least suspicious way of getting a dead child away from the scene?

what were the other options if they did find her dead on the night?

I just cannot believe that if the tapas crew were involved that they could sit and eat normally / socialise if madeleine died earler

surely the tapas who weren't involved would have noticed something

put it this way if I was one of the tapas involved I would be physically sick and not eat at all

by tracey1270 06.11.13 8:42

soundworks wrote:maybe Gerry thought that was the least suspicious way of getting a dead child away from the scene?

what were the other options if they did find her dead on the night?

I just cannot believe that if the tapas crew were involved that they could sit and eat normally / socialise if madeleine died earler

surely the tapas who weren't involved would have noticed something

put it this way if I was one of the tapas involved I would be physically sick and not eat at all

I think most would have been oblivious, just not all of them, I think I recall one of the Tapas lot saying kate was quite uncomfortable about Maddie crying the night before and they talked about it..maybe that was part of the plan as not to arouse the suspicions of those who were not involved maybe she mentioned the possibility Maddie heard someone outside and was planting the seed? still think that has to do with more than just the Mcann's they did not do this alone, I doubt it anyway.

by Swannie 06.11.13 8:53

soundworks wrote:put it this way if I was one of the tapas involved I would be physically sick and not eat at all

One of the Tapas hardly did eat at all - he seemed to spend most of the evening away from the table "caring for a sick child".....

by tracey1270 06.11.13 8:55

Swannie wrote:
soundworks wrote:put it this way if I was one of the tapas involved I would be physically sick and not eat at all
One of the Tapas hardly did eat at all - he seemed to spend most of the evening away from the table "caring for a sick child".....

But was he???

by RIPM 06.11.13 9:14

Swannie wrote:
soundworks wrote:put it this way if I was one of the tapas involved I would be physically sick and not eat at all
One of the Tapas hardly did eat at all - he seemed to spend most of the evening away from the table "caring for a sick child".....

I thought the point was they didn't eat that night. 3 course dinners ordered and eaten in minutes. They started ordering after 21.05/10 and finished before 21.30 fast food indeed. According to their statements the Tapas was 'fine dining ' individually prepared steaks etc., could not be done within the time frame. On top of this put the' checking ' and there is no time for socialising or eating.

by pennylane 06.11.13 9:32

Cristobell wrote:Comparing the two sightings on the night of the 3rd - their are similarities that are quite bizarre. In both cases, the child was unconscious, wearing only pyjamas, not covered by a blanket or a dressing gown, and with bare feet.

I think we are all agreed, it is highly unlikely that a parent would carry their sleeping child from the creche into the cold night air, in the manner described. Babies and toddlers come with lots of baggage, favourite toy, bottle/cup, buggy, change of clothes, blanket etc. Neither sighting sounds like a genuine father carrying their child home.

Up until recently, no-one had come forward in 6.5 years claiming to have carried a child through PDL on night of 3rd May, and I'm not convinced anyone has, even now. The two descriptions match on the crucial points, the child appeared 'abducted'. That is the child had been taken straight from its bed, dressed only in its pyjamas and the 'father' had none of the expected child in transit accessories.

What are the chances of two men walking around PDL that night, each showing no nurturing tendencies whatsoever to the child they were carrying? Someone is clearly lying so the two descriptions match, that is, a man carrying a barefoot child, dressed only in pyjamas, who had clearly just been lifted out of bed. One sighting must have known about the other sighting, and one sighting must be real. We know which one the police have eliminated.

I can see no reason whatsoever for a large family on holiday to incriminate themselves in a heinous crime involved a young child. Just not buying it. If Gerry was the man the Smith family saw, he saw them too. That would be reason enough to create another sighting that proved it couldn't possibly be Gerry because he was standing in the street talking to Jez when man walked by with shoeless child. However, given the hash Jane Tanner made of the re-telling, no-one believed her anyway. The Tanner lead was followed on the McCanns' insistence and Goncalo Amaral was removed as he was arranging to bring the Smith family back out to PDL. Now we have just discovered that not only did the McCanns file away the Exton report and efits, they took action to prevent them ever becoming public. I keep thinking anyday now something will happen, and the papers are keeping us on our toes with all these bizarre McCann stories. There is no way Goncalo Amaral can lose now, there wasn't before, but the suppressed report is the original smoking gun for his Defence. We've waited this long, but I honestly do think the end is in sight.

Great post Cristobel, full of down to earth common sense and logic. clapping1