Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

Nobody was out searching after 2am, and the police had departed by 3.30. And I haven't implicated anyone in particular

jeanmonroe wrote:Maybe GM was taking her down the stairs when JW 'turns up'
Puts here down in 'garden'
Quickly out of gate, to chat with JW.
Tanner already arranged to be in 'place' on 'lookout' duty.
She could hardly 'about turn' after leaving the OC,and onto street, not KNOWING whether JW had 'seen' her, could she?
After JW has 'gone' back to his apartment.
GM 'retrieves' from garden and 'hides' somewhere else
Gerry and DP go out again at 4:00am on the 4th May and move again?

DID JW actually 'see' GM re-enter the OC after his 'chat'?
DID anyone other than their 'pact of silence' friends SEE GM 'return' to the tapas when he said he did?

Im on your line of thought, however I believe Tanner was waiting for someone to arrive at that moment to take the body away. She panicked seeing GM and JW talking so immediately made up Tannerman.

candyfloss wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Errr, KM said it was.
In an interview shown on BBC’s Crimewatch last night, along with a detailed reconstruction, Kate told how she heard a door slam when she went to check on her children.

Oh well, that's it all decided then. One involved person says something and it's gospel. Sorry everyone, the window was open and somebody carried her off. You are an experienced member of this forum, CF, and have doubtless been following this story for as long as I have. Are you having me on?

Oh I didn't realise you were being sarcastic re your comment.  I read it differently now.

Just wanted to add, everyone says no-one else saw the open window, but this employee did
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

am not stating any opinion on the matter.

StraightThinking wrote:Nobody was out searching after 2am, and the police had departed by 3.30. And I haven't implicated anyone in particular

4 am it was.  Here is Charlotte Penningtons statement.  Others have said the same.

 States that the searches carried out by the Ocean Club elements terminated at around 04H00 the next morning, 04 of May, 2007, with negative results;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thanks CF, I had a different time

Well then, the streets were quiet after 4

galena wrote:Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again.  Way way too much risk

Although it is by far the most popular theory on here, the idea of of a giant conspiracy which involved smuggling a body out of 5a between 21.15 and 22.00 doesn't make sense. Why bother raising the alarm at all?

The only reason for K raising the alarm would be that she genuinely had no idea where M had gone

As Pat Brown says, M could have been removed in the middle of the night and the alarm raised the following morning if that's what they wanted to do

If Smithman is significant, he fits in with this in some other way

StraightThinking wrote:

galena wrote:Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again.  Way way too much risk

Although it is by far the most popular theory on here, the idea of of a giant conspiracy which involved smuggling a body out of 5a between 21.15 and 22.00 doesn't make sense. Why bother raising the alarm at all?

The only reason for K raising the alarm would be that she genuinely had no idea where M had gone

As Pat Brown says, M could have been removed in the middle of the night and the alarm raised the following morning if that's what they wanted to do

If Smithman is significant, he fits in with this in some other way

Maybe because others nearby (for example Mrs Fenn) had noticed 'activity'..in fact I believe in Mrs Fenns statement she says she offered her phone to GM around 22.30 but he said the authorities had already been notified?

poster wrote:Just wanted to add, everyone says no-one else saw the open window, but this employee did
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

am not stating any opinion on the matter.

***
She's stating that she saw the window and shutters open, when she entered AFTER the alarm had been raised:

"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding."

We also know, that only Kate's prints were found on the window and that Gerry had been opening the shutter to "proof" that it was easily possible ...

StraightThinking wrote:

galena wrote:Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again.  Way way too much risk

Although it is by far the most popular theory on here, the idea of of a giant conspiracy which involved smuggling a body out of 5a between 21.15 and 22.00 doesn't make sense. Why bother raising the alarm at all?

The only reason for K raising the alarm would be that she genuinely had no idea where M had gone

As Pat Brown says, M could have been removed in the middle of the night and the alarm raised the following morning if that's what they wanted to do

If Smithman is significant, he fits in with this in some other way

Good point , I had to think about that...Because it was already out there.....(from  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) 
21:20, Executive Chef A.E.G.F.P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.
 
At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;

It would be inevitable that the police would be there that night.

Châtelaine wrote:

poster wrote:Just wanted to add, everyone says no-one else saw the open window, but this employee did
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

am not stating any opinion on the matter.

***
She's stating that she saw the window and shutters open, when she entered AFTER the alarm had been raised:

"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding."

We also know, that only Kate's prints were found on the window and that Gerry had been opening the shutter to "proof" that it was easily possible ...

I agree, it could have been Kate opening the window.  It's just that I always read that no-one else saw the open shutters and window.

galena wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

galena wrote:the most important evidence remaining to us is the cadaver dog evidence.  I originally supported theories that she might have wandered away

Eddie indicated a smell of death in 5a, not the fact someone actually died there. Death could have occurred elsewhere. Keela indicated blood (ie injury) not death, though it is tenuous. So your theory of wandering off is still compatible with the dogs' indications, as long as the body was briefly returned from its temporary hidey hole to 5a en route to its final resting place

Sorry I find it very hard to believe that they would have taken the risk with the PJ involved and lots of people out searching. Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again.  Way way too much risk, for a group which seem to be extremely risk averse (as you would expect with doctors).

I think Matt Oldfield moved the body temporarily after he was inside 5A,9:35-9:40PM
MO said that he never saw Maddie in her bed, he does not lie because GM and MO put the body in the closet 9:00 to 9:15 PM.
MO said also in his statement that he volunteered to search for Maddie after 22pm, natural yes, but MO said he went to the "Millenium" and then down to the beach, can anyone confirm where he was after 22pm?

NickE wrote:

galena wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

galena wrote:the most important evidence remaining to us is the cadaver dog evidence.  I originally supported theories that she might have wandered away

Eddie indicated a smell of death in 5a, not the fact someone actually died there. Death could have occurred elsewhere. Keela indicated blood (ie injury) not death, though it is tenuous. So your theory of wandering off is still compatible with the dogs' indications, as long as the body was briefly returned from its temporary hidey hole to 5a en route to its final resting place

Sorry I find it very hard to believe that they would have taken the risk with the PJ involved and lots of people out searching. Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again.  Way way too much risk, for a group which seem to be extremely risk averse (as you would expect with doctors).

I think Matt Oldfield moved the body temporarily after he was inside 5A,9:35-9:40PM
MO said that he never saw Maddie in her bed, he does not lie because GM and MO put the body in the closet 9:00 to 9:15 PM.
MO said also in his statement that he volunteered to search for Maddie after 22pm, natural yes, but MO said he went to the "Millenium" and then down to the beach, can anyone confirm where he was after 22pm?

The blood spray pattern is related to the cadaver scent behind the sofa. 
We have: 
Sofa moved against that wall - reason given to stop Maddie losing her playing cards behind it.
Blood spray pattern indicative of broken hyoid bone in throat. 
Quantity of blood under the tiles, indicating blood flow. 

The whole picture. 
Imo and that of many others she did not die that night. There was no corpse in 5a that night. 
Few seem to have taken rigor mortis on board. So imo the body was hidden soon after death - probably in the blue bag - In the wardrobe. The bag rested on the flowerbed very briefly, then was transported to a refrigerated  environment. 
Imo this occurred on the 1st May as I'm convinced the crying episode was due to the twins. 
Otherwise it could be the 2nd May. Which is a black hole in their accounts. 
See Dr Roberts 'Thirty days'. It's then that 'they have taken her?'
Perfectly true .....

I assume you believe that Smithman isn't relevant then, tigger, apologies if you've said that elsewhere, I've been following your comments for years but can't remember everything

The problem I have with this (admittedly popular) theory is - why wait until the evening of May 3 and construct an elaborate piece of fiction to cover the tracks when M could just have been whisked away in the night when nobody was looking?

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of some or all of the T9 acting as if nothing had happened at the Tapas

And if Smithman isn't connected, why hasn't he come forward?

StraightThinking wrote:I assume you believe that Smithman isn't relevant then, tigger, apologies if you've said that elsewhere, I've been following your comments for years but can't remember everything

The problem I have with this (admittedly popular) theory is - why wait until the evening of May 3 and construct an elaborate piece of fiction to cover the tracks when M could just have been whisked away in the night when nobody was looking?

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of some or all of the T9 acting as if nothing had happened at the Tapas

And if Smithman isn't connected, why hasn't he come forward?

If there is a Smithman, and if he is unconnected, I can well imagine why he would not come forward. The media intrusion and hullaballoo, the whole farcical circus would turn his life upside down, for a while at least, and a persons name could well become "tarnished". If you knew you had nothing to do with something, although it might be the right thing to come forward, you'd weigh it up and see whether that much upheaval and BS is worth the affect it would have. Particularly if you had no sympathy for the McCanns. Just a thought.

It would have been a simple matter of police checking out all the locals and holidaymakers with young children based in PdL on May 3 and asking them "were you in that place at 21.55 that evening?"

Night creches like the one at OC would be a good place to start since there isn't any other good reason for carting a kid around the streets at that hour

They could still do it now, by looking for families who were there at the time with children now aged 9-11

PdL in early May, not a huge population to deal with, and it would eliminate Smithman if he is irrelevant

tigger wrote:

NickE wrote:

galena wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

galena wrote:the most important evidence remaining to us is the cadaver dog evidence.  I originally supported theories that she might have wandered away

Eddie indicated a smell of death in 5a, not the fact someone actually died there. Death could have occurred elsewhere. Keela indicated blood (ie injury) not death, though it is tenuous. So your theory of wandering off is still compatible with the dogs' indications, as long as the body was briefly returned from its temporary hidey hole to 5a en route to its final resting place

Sorry I find it very hard to believe that they would have taken the risk with the PJ involved and lots of people out searching. Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again.  Way way too much risk, for a group which seem to be extremely risk averse (as you would expect with doctors).

I think Matt Oldfield moved the body temporarily after he was inside 5A,9:35-9:40PM
MO said that he never saw Maddie in her bed, he does not lie because GM and MO put the body in the closet 9:00 to 9:15 PM.
MO said also in his statement that he volunteered to search for Maddie after 22pm, natural yes, but MO said he went to the "Millenium" and then down to the beach, can anyone confirm where he was after 22pm?

The blood spray pattern is related to the cadaver scent behind the sofa. 
We have: 
Sofa moved against that wall - reason given to stop Maddie losing her playing cards behind it.
Blood spray pattern indicative of broken hyoid bone in throat. 
Quantity of blood under the tiles, indicating blood flow. 

The whole picture. 
Imo and that of many others she did not die that night. There was no corpse in 5a that night. 
Few seem to have taken rigor mortis on board. So imo the body was hidden soon after death - probably in the blue bag - In the wardrobe. The bag rested on the flowerbed very briefly, then was transported to a refrigerated  environment. 
Imo this occurred on the 1st May as I'm convinced the crying episode was due to the twins. 
Otherwise it could be the 2nd May. Which is a black hole in their accounts. 
See Dr Roberts 'Thirty days'. It's then that 'they have taken her?'
Perfectly true .....

If it was planned like these by intelegent profesoinal people there wouldn't not be as many contradictory issues , windows not forced etc. and the time lines would work.
It seems to me there are 2 incompatible time lines. 
1. The Tapas 9 statements and the sticker book
2. The independant witnesses at the Tapas bar area


I can only think of one reason why the timeline discrepancies. The 1st  one was created after the Smith sighting occurred to discredit the sighting. This is one reason why I believe the Smith sighting so important.

U

StraightThinking wrote:I assume you believe that Smithman isn't relevant then, tigger, apologies if you've said that elsewhere, I've been following your comments for years but can't remember everything

The problem I have with this (admittedly popular) theory is - why wait until the evening of May 3 and construct an elaborate piece of fiction to cover the tracks when M could just have been whisked away in the night when nobody was looking?

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of some or all of the T9 acting as if nothing had happened at the Tapas

And if Smithman isn't connected, why hasn't he come forward?

On the contrary, very relevant. 
But imo part of the performance on the 3rd. Imo Gerry with a live child, I think Sean who was big for his age. As the child was wearing girls clothes but at no time did the Smiths see its face. Twins had their  hair cut soon afterwards.  Sean's might have been as long and curly as Amelie's. it was also very blond where Maddie was close to light brown. 

I believe the Smith sighting because: 
By the time Murat was arrested, he needed an alibi for 9.15, not 10.00 PM. 
Murat would be the kind of personality one would remember, certainly in a small expat community.
Smith would  naturally contact police once Murat was made arguido because heknewwho it was not rather than who it might be. 
The way people move and walk is part of our recognition pattern, e.g. Seen from the back, one can often think it's someone we know because they move in a similar way. That's why seeing Gerry on TV gave Smith what the Germans call ' die Aha erlebnis'  - a moment of recognition based on movement and appearance.


@ durhamguy1967  it wasn't planned by intelligent people, imo it was planned by a few people who think they are intelligent. Add to that a generous helping of a superiority complex and there we are. 
Their statements and explanations annoy me on several levels but mostly because they presume room temperature IQ on thepartof their audience.

Rigor mortis commences about 3 to 4 hours after death.  Smithman could easily have been carrying Madeleine before rigor mortis set in if she died that evening.

EDIT: admittedly, this varies from human to human, and it may commence earlier in a child.

My questions in all of this as in any other criminal case is How relevent are Witnesses and how reliable are their testimony, especially when there are conflicting statements by various witnesses? Can a criminal case or does a criminal case rely solely on witness evidence to build a case? If we disregard witness testimony in this case what is left to build a case against a possible perpetrator? Wouldn't witness evidence be Hearsay? What other concrete evidence is there to convict in the case of this missing child Madeline McCann? Can a case be even brought to Trial and conclusion without finding the child or her remains? After 6.5 years approximately since Madeline has been missing it seems to me that SY and Portugal have not got anything much at this point in even identifying and charging anyone in regard to this case. They seem to be clueless and still asking for the publics assistance in asking for anyone who knows anything of what they may have seen that night of Madeline's disappearance to come forth with information. And what of all the tips that were called in after CW? It seems they have no new leads in the case?
I just feel they will never solve this case unless they look more closely at the parents and the T7, and question them further about all the inconsistencies etc. and their very dubious behaviour since that fateful night in May 2007. JMO.

I think they're not meant to solve this case imo, they're meant to put it to bed with an acceptable explanation.

tigger wrote:I think they're not meant to solve this case imo, they're meant to put it to bed with an acceptable explanation.

tigger, I think you're right in what you say.

Joss wrote:

tigger wrote:I think they're not meant to solve this case imo, they're meant to put it to bed with an acceptable explanation.

tigger, I think you're right in what you say.

Ditto!

tigger wrote:I think they're not meant to solve this case imo, they're meant to put it to bed with an acceptable explanation.

Why do that though?

Sockpuppet wrote:Rigor mortis commences about 3 to 4 hours after death.  Smithman could easily have been carrying Madeleine before rigor mortis set in if she died that evening.

EDIT: admittedly, this varies from human to human, and it may commence earlier in a child.

***
"Also, it is not unusual for infants and young children who die not to display rigor mortis, possibly due to their smaller muscle mass."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Châtelaine wrote:

Sockpuppet wrote:Rigor mortis commences about 3 to 4 hours after death.  Smithman could easily have been carrying Madeleine before rigor mortis set in if she died that evening.

EDIT: admittedly, this varies from human to human, and it may commence earlier in a child.

***
"Also, it is not unusual for infants and young children who die not to display rigor mortis, possibly due to their smaller muscle mass."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

... And rigor mortis disappears at a later stage.

tigger wrote:U

StraightThinking wrote:I assume you believe that Smithman isn't relevant then, tigger, apologies if you've said that elsewhere, I've been following your comments for years but can't remember everything

The problem I have with this (admittedly popular) theory is - why wait until the evening of May 3 and construct an elaborate piece of fiction to cover the tracks when M could just have been whisked away in the night when nobody was looking?

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of some or all of the T9 acting as if nothing had happened at the Tapas

And if Smithman isn't connected, why hasn't he come forward?

On the contrary, very relevant. 
But imo part of the performance on the 3rd. Imo Gerry with a live child, I think Sean who was big for his age. As the child was wearing girls clothes but at no time did the Smiths see its face. Twins had their  hair cut soon afterwards.  Sean's might have been as long and curly as Amelie's. it was also very blond where Maddie was close to light brown. 

I believe the Smith sighting because: 
By the time Murat was arrested, he needed an alibi for 9.15, not 10.00 PM. 
Murat would be the kind of personality one would remember, certainly in a small expat community.
Smith would  naturally contact police once Murat was made arguido because heknewwho it was not rather than who it might be. 
The way people move and walk is part of our recognition pattern, e.g. Seen from the back, one can often think it's someone we know because they move in a similar way. That's why seeing Gerry on TV gave Smith what the Germans call ' die Aha erlebnis'  - a moment of recognition based on movement and appearance.


@ durhamguy1967  it wasn't planned by intelligent people, imo it was planned by a few people who think they are intelligent. Add to that a generous helping of a superiority complex and there we are. 
Their statements and explanations annoy me on several levels but mostly because they presume room temperature IQ on thepartof their audience.

You can't stand any chance of qualifying as a doctor unless your IQ is well above average. In addition I don't think it's wise to underestimate people, after all this case must be the most publisised missing child story ever, millions of pounds and hours have been spent trying to solve it yet no one has been convicted of any wrong doing.

There is so much information out there that it is difficult to know what is true and what is not:  That almost echoes the words of Gerry McCann when he said that “confusion was good”.  With so many contradictory testimonies, false leads, false sightings and red herrings, how can we be 100% of anything that we are told?  We have to draw our own conclusions, but even that is not straight forward.

The latest news, if we can call it that, brings the Martin Smith sighting back in to play, but what the media have failed to mention is that Mr Smith pointed the finger at Gerry McCann, he said that he was certain that he was the man that he saw carrying Madeleine at 10pm on May 3rd 2007.  This statement was backed up by his family and accepted by Goncalo Amaral and his team.   When summoned to Portugal to give evidence, Mr Smith failed to attend and since then we have heard no more of his sighting that puts Gerry in the frame, on the contrary, we hear that a sketch has been produced and a new suspect identified.  Was Mr Smith silenced? Or was there more to this than meets the eye?  The only way to find out is to dig deeper and work it out for ourselves.  

If Madeleine was abducted, then the suspect was either an opportunist who just happened to be in the area at that time or someone who had planned the abduction and had been watching the McCanns apartment for some time.  The opportunist would not have known that there were 3 children in the apartment, or that there were no adults present.  He may have broken into the apartment only to find Gerry or someone else standing there, but assuming that he was lucky and got away unseen, how could he be certain that he would not meet the child’s parents as he was carrying her through the gate?  I think that that rules out the opportunist.  Now on to the planned abduction.  The abductor sees Gerry leave and immediately enters the apartment, he knows that he has got a maximum of 20 minutes before the McCanns’ discover that the child is missing, therefore he has 20 minutes to get out of town before the alarm is sounded.  Are we expected to believe that this abductor was walking around Praia Da Luz with a missing child in his arms knowing that the place would be swarming with police cars within minutes?  The alleged suspect met the Smith family on his way, how did he know that he wouldn’t meet the McCann family on his travels with their daughter?  This just doesn’t add up at all.  So unless the abductor is of no intelligence whatsoever, that rules out Martin Smith seeing Madeleine with an abductor.  So who did Martin Smith see that night?  

Below is an extract from Martins’ statement in which he claims that whilst walking towards Kelly’s bar at 10pm a man carrying a child was walking in the opposite direction.  He says that the man walked normally and fitted in perfectly in the area and that it was normal to see people carrying children.  In other words there was nothing at all strange about this man and no reason that he should have drawn attention to himself.

Martin Smith gives a fairly well detailed description of this man and the child.

At the time, Martin, as far as we know, did not know Gerry McCann or any of the Tapas 9 and was not aware that Madeleine was missing. Also, bearing in mind that it is 10pm, the Smiths have been out to dinner and maybe or maybe not, had a pint or two (not suggesting that they were drunk at all), and were in a fair sized group which included four children, we can assume that they were walking as they were chatting amongst themselves, the adults keeping their eyes on the children to make sure that they were keeping up.  In other words, their attention would have been focussed on each other.  They would have passed a number of people along the way (and according to Martins statement, there was nothing different about the man with the child), so why were they able to give such a detailed description of this one man that just happened to pass them? Are this family so observant that they could give detailed descriptions of everyone that they passed that night?  Or was there something special about that man that stood out and made them take notice and make a mental note of his description?

It is things like this that make me wonder how much credibility should be placed on these things.  Try the test yourself, if you have been out today and passed another person, can you now describe that person in such detail?  If you were aware of a person being sought after and you saw someone meeting that description you may be more alert, but generally you would just move on and not notice.

In addition to this, the statements of the family all seem to similar, including the statement of his 12 year old daughter.

I am in no way suggesting that Martin Smiths testimony is to be dismissed but it does need further research before we accept it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Extract from Martin Smiths’ statement
As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction to him and his companions. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.

— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

Sharonl

I. The Smiths didn't encounter any other man that night as they all walked back from Kellys bar except "Smithman"

2. Smithman was carrying a child that the Smiths were certain was Madeleine

3 I'm pretty sure if you or I  were walking on a normally deserted street at 10pm with a group of people and passed by a man carrying a small child, would definitely remember details on reflection when hearing of a Missing Child the next day.

logical wrote:Sharonl

I. The Smiths didn't encounter any other man that night as they all walked back from Kellys bar except "Smithman"

2. Smithman was carrying a child that the Smiths were certain was Madeleine

3 I'm pretty sure if you or I  were walking on a normally deserted street at 10pm with a group of people and passed by a man carrying a small child, would definitely remember details on reflection when hearing of a Missing Child the next day.

Logical, I don't think point 3 is logical, if you pardon the pun.

You cannot remember any more than the information you saw at the time.  A man in a large group on holiday, walking home at 10 pm saw a man with a child.  Just because the child may subsequently have turned out to be  a missing child, will not transplant more details to his brain.

I think he gave a reasonable and acceptable account in his statement.  I would be more suspicious if he decided to go into minute detail.

I'm not being insulting to our male members but I think he did quite well.  Men, in my opinion are not always as observant to the insignificant, passing things.  That's why I would like to see Mrs Smith's statement.

pennylane wrote:

Joss wrote:

tigger wrote:I think they're not meant to solve this case imo, they're meant to put it to bed with an acceptable explanation.

tigger, I think you're right in what you say.

Ditto!

I agree. The only thing to ponder is why it has taken them so long.