Re: The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.13 14:36

jeanmonroe wrote:They, the McCanns, have never, ever, PRODUCED a minutest piece of 'evidence' that an 'abduction' occurred.

They have.

Up until now, we have had their word PLUS Tannerman.

Redwood has found Tannerman - it was crecheman.

The abduction evidence is now their word PLUS Smithman.

It is as simple as that.

I hopes that clears it up.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.13 14:39

Estelle wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:Before we disappear down too many rabbit holes, can someone give a citation for the Smiths knowing Murat? I think I've seen the claim before, but not the evidence for that being the case.
"... Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately."

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

MS
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously.
"He was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s and I didn't think he was Portuguese."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Here MS is saying he did not think he was "Portuguese" therefore he must be a tourist! So what about the large British ex-pat community who live there and are locals? Also, at night, most men would wear long trousers and a jacket, surely!

Estelle - well spotted! - even from 12,000 miles away!

Not a tourist...

...not Portuguese.

Therefore neither a tourist nor a local.

But wait!

Maybe a non-Portuguese who was local!

That must narrow the field a bit in a small Portuguese village of a few hundred people!

by currio 08.11.13 14:41

Tony, in your opinion do you think the truth will ever come out?

by Guest 08.11.13 14:41

candyfloss wrote:Just two points. First about the point of view that the police would not lead a witness about who they had seen..........

Witness Statement

Adriaan Jacobus Van Marais

Date: 2007/11/16

Profession: Head of Personnel

Place of Work: Golfinho Restaurant, P da L

When questioned he said that he does not know Robert Murat. He never saw him personally. He has just seen him on television. When asked he says that he does not remember having seen him that night helping in the searches.

Second Point regarding the police asking the question about looking like a tourist, well, another independent witness says the same about a suspicious individual (not the sighting), therefore he must have been asked the question...........

This person did not seem to him to be a tourist or an inhabitant of the village. He describes the individual as being male, white, but with sun-tanned skin, aged about 30. He was about 1.70 ? 1.80 tall and had a normal physical appearance. He remembers that he had dark coloured hair, a little gathered at the back but not covering his neck totally. He does not remember whether he ever saw him with glasses, but knows that he did not have a beard or moustache. He does not remember any other details

Above from the statement of Head of Personnel Golfinho Restaurant

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

So what about this Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.13 14:44

candyfloss wrote:Just two points. First about the point of view that the police would not lead a witness about who they had seen..........

Witness Statement

Adriaan Jacobus Van Marais

Date: 2007/11/16

Profession: Head of Personnel

Place of Work: Golfinho Restaurant, P da L

When questioned he said that he does not know Robert Murat. He never saw him personally. He has just seen him on television. When asked he says that he does not remember having seen him that night helping in the searches.

Second Point regarding the police asking the question about looking like a tourist, well, another independent witness says the same about a suspicious individual (not the sighting), therefore he must have been asked the question...........

This person did not seem to him to be a tourist or an inhabitant of the village. He describes the individual as being male, white, but with sun-tanned skin, aged about 30. He was about 1.70 ? 1.80 tall and had a normal physical appearance. He remembers that he had dark coloured hair, a little gathered at the back but not covering his neck totally. He does not remember whether he ever saw him with glasses, but knows that he did not have a beard or moustache. He does not remember any other details

Above from the statement of Head of Personnel Golfinho Restaurant

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

Good points.

But this statement wasn't taken until 16 November, by which time...

1. Amaral and his colleagues had been booted off the case over 6 weeks before

2. A new police team was in charge

3. The police would by then be particularly intetrested in whether or not any sighting could have been of a foreigner or of Murat.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.13 14:45

currio wrote:Tony, in your opinion do you think the truth will ever come out?

I keep saying that I hope all the truth will be revealed before I die.

I am now 66

by Monty Heck 08.11.13 14:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:Reading the last few pages has got me wondering...could this sighting simply be a "revenge" sighting as payback to the Tapas 9 for implicating Murat? Sorry if I missed this theory earlier.

I hope it isn't, but nothing would shock me in this case anymore ( besides the utter selfishness with a little girl missing)
People have been asking what possible motive Martin Smith could have had for fabricating a sighting - an idea that, as I fully appreciate, most people have trouble coming to terms with.

It is a fact that Martin Smith knew Murat.

It is a fact that Martin Smith owns an apartment in Praia da Luz in the Estrala da Luz complex.

We do not know for how long i.e. for how many years.

There is evidence that Martin Smith has minimised his degree of acquaintance with Murat.

It is a fact that Murat was made an arguido on 14 May.

It is fact that on 15 and 16 May, the following members of the Tapas 7 all made statements (which they have since retracted( claiming (falsely) that they saw Murat hanging around near the Ocean Club the night Madeleine was reported missing:

Rachael Oldfield/Mamphilly
Russell O'Brien
Fiona Payne

It is reported as a fact (and I believe it to be so) that neither Martin Smith nor any member of his family did anything about reporting their 'sighting' until 16 May, when they 'phoned the PJ.

It is a fact that when Martin Smith was interviewed by the PJ in Portugal on 26 May, he was able to say that the man with child that he says he saw was not Robert Murat.

I guess as amateur sleuths it is up to us to work out what all this might mean.

Re text in bold red (mine) Estrella da Luz is one of the newer complexes in PDL and in 2007 would probably have been open maybe two years or so. Website here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]estreladaluz.com gives no completion date for the complex but I do recall for the first several years of visiting PDL the area was a fenced off site, so as a guesstimate would calculate it opened around 2005.

Probably advances things not an inch but wanted to point out that EDL isn't one of the long established complexes like OC, therefore in 2007 MS would have owned his apartment for no more than 2 or maybe 3 years, assuming he occupied it immediately it was completed. If MS had visited his apartment at EDL perhaps twice a year for the past couple of years this does not seem to suggest a particularly long or involved acquaintance with RM, although it's possible they may have known each other before then.

Still undecided re Smithman. Leaving aside the reliability of the Smith family, there are simply too many similarities to Tannerman, now ruled out by SY. It's hard to follow the logic of categorically ruling out one sighting but on the other hand promoting another, uncannily similar individual.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.11.13 14:48

Okeydokey wrote:Before we disappear down too many rabbit holes, can someone give a citation for the Smiths knowing Murat? I think I've seen the claim before, but not the evidence for that being the case.

Okeydokey - briefly, he has admitted it both in his police interview (16 May 2007) and in newspaper interviews - try mccannfiles for all the references.

by Guest 08.11.13 14:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Just two points. First about the point of view that the police would not lead a witness about who they had seen..........

Witness Statement

Adriaan Jacobus Van Marais

Date: 2007/11/16

Profession: Head of Personnel

Place of Work: Golfinho Restaurant, P da L

When questioned he said that he does not know Robert Murat. He never saw him personally. He has just seen him on television. When asked he says that he does not remember having seen him that night helping in the searches.

Second Point regarding the police asking the question about looking like a tourist, well, another independent witness says the same about a suspicious individual (not the sighting), therefore he must have been asked the question...........

This person did not seem to him to be a tourist or an inhabitant of the village. He describes the individual as being male, white, but with sun-tanned skin, aged about 30. He was about 1.70 ? 1.80 tall and had a normal physical appearance. He remembers that he had dark coloured hair, a little gathered at the back but not covering his neck totally. He does not remember whether he ever saw him with glasses, but knows that he did not have a beard or moustache. He does not remember any other details

Above from the statement of Head of Personnel Golfinho Restaurant

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

But this statement wasn't taken until 16 November, by which time...

1. Amaral and his colleagues had been booted off the case over 6 weeks before

2. A new police team was in charge

3. The police would by then be particularly intetrested in whether or not any sighting could have been of a foreigner or of Murat.

My point is that this is the sort of questioning the PJ did, I expect a standard thing. Murat was an arguido wasn't he when Smith gave his statement, it was right at the beginning, so I am sure they would have asked the question so as to eliminate him from being the man Smith saw.

by Liz Eagles 08.11.13 14:53

jeanmonroe wrote:
aquila wrote:The thing that strikes me is that whilst the McCanns have their website (£37k publicly funded and rarely updated) asking for information (and please look at the confidentiality arrangements on that) and whilst Scotland Yard have done a Crimewatch spectacular and whilst the Portuguese police are now asking for judicial secrecy there is no advantage for anyone with information to come forward other than to have their lives picked over with a fish fork.

Scotland Yard need to sort this out imo and they can start by closing down the findmadeleine website's private number to appeal for information.

As I understand things the McCanns have their wish to re-open the case in Portugal. The McCanns were granted their wish for the Met to do an independent review.

What the hell is wrong with Scotland Yard now telling the McCanns to close their own 'helpline' and telling everyone that ALL information must go through the Yard?
TANNERMAN IS STILL BEING PROMOTED ON THEIR WEBSITE, RIGHT NOW!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WHY HASN'T SY/MET CLOSED THIS DOWN AS IT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DIMISSED, BY THEM, THE ELITES, AS A 'REAL' SIGHTING OF AN ABDUCTOR?

WHY ARE SY/MET ALLOWING THIS 'FALSE' ABDUCTOR DESCRIPTION TO STILL BE PROMOTED BY THE MCCANNS AS A PERSON OF INTEREST?

25 DAYS AFTER DISMISSING IT AS A FALSE 'SIGHTING'!

and why are these basic common sense comments on this forum being lost with trivialities such as bar receipts?

Makes ya wonder!

by currio 08.11.13 15:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
currio wrote:Tony, in your opinion do you think the truth will ever come out?
I keep saying that I hope all the truth will be revealed before I die.

I am now 66

Thanks Tony. ...I have a feeling it's coming very soon :)

One more question. Were you LogicMan?...He seemed to have it sussed, in the first few days.

by Estelle 08.11.13 15:06

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:People have been asking what possible motive Martin Smith could have had for fabricating a sighting - an idea that, as I fully appreciate, most people have trouble coming to terms with.

It is a fact that Martin Smith knew Murat.

It is a fact that Martin Smith owns an apartment in Praia da Luz in the Estrala da Luz complex.

We do not know for how long i.e. for how many years.

There is evidence that Martin Smith has minimised his degree of acquaintance with Murat.

It is a fact that Murat was made an arguido on 14 May.

It is fact that on 15 and 16 May, the following members of the Tapas 7 all made statements (which they have since retracted( claiming (falsely) that they saw Murat hanging around near the Ocean Club the night Madeleine was reported missing:

Rachael Oldfield/Mamphilly
Russell O'Brien
Fiona Payne

It is reported as a fact (and I believe it to be so) that neither Martin Smith nor any member of his family did anything about reporting their 'sighting' until 16 May, when they 'phoned the PJ.

It is a fact that when Martin Smith was interviewed by the PJ in Portugal on 26 May, he was able to say that the man with child that he says he saw was not Robert Murat.

I guess as amateur sleuths it is up to us to work out what all this might mean.
So you largely agree with my suggestion then? (I understand you have to be very careful) It could be that the family did see a man carrying a kid sometime on the evening of the 3rd and after Murat was implicated he wanted to help a friend. I will try to think about this more...

So now if we eliminate this sighting along with the Tanner sighting we are back to square one with the Tapas 9 at dinner doing checks every few minutes around the apartment complex and yet a girl disappears without a trace.

I would really like to hear the latest theory from any of you long time sleuths because I'm completely stumped once again.

I must admit that I have been on the fence about Martin Smith's sighting since TB pointed out the 17 similarities with their "sightings" which I had not realised before.

I had always believed that Martin Smith made his statement mainly to protect Murat but he still must have sighted someone.

Then when he said he was 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann in September, 2007, I had since believed that it was Gerry carrying a sedated blonde child to support the abduction scenario assuming it could have been Amelie who was not much smaller than Maddie and lighter to carry. His goal being to be seen but not recognised.

But I am now wondering whether Jane Tanner and Martin Smith were in collusion because not all the 17 similarities were released to the media so how did he know about them?

Somebody must have told him. Did Murat know these similarities and phoned MS about them asking him to give him an alibi stating these similarities? Or did MS get this knowledge via Jane or TM? So if MS was in league with them, why would he say it was 60-80% Gerry?

"Truthwillcomeout" has suggested revenge. So was it because they had not changed their stories by then?

But if Murat had been a willing patsy, had it all gone too far? Had they promised to change their stories earlier and had not? So Martin Smith decided to say it was Gerry in revenge? Then we had Kennedy's visit to Murat and then their stories gradually started to change.

Then they later started to make connections with Jane's and Martin's sightings.

This is all starting to make sense and I have come off the fence. Now there is definitely no sighting of an abductor that night.

by jeanmonroe 08.11.13 15:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:They, the McCanns, have never, ever, PRODUCED a minutest piece of 'evidence' that an 'abduction' occurred.
They have.

Up until now, we have had their word PLUS Tannerman.

Redwood has found Tannerman - it was crecheman.

The abduction evidence is now their word PLUS Smithman.

It is as simple as that.

I hopes that clears it up.

So when SY 'find' Smithman and 'discount' him too..........OMG!

That MEANS the only 'abduction evidence' will ONLY be the 'missing' child's own parents, the McCanns, 'word'.

Phew, that's alright then..........NO doctor has never, ever lied before, have they?

They must be cursing DCI Redwood for eliminating their 'friend' Jane's 'sighting' (PROOF) of Madeleine being 'carried off (abducted) wearing the exact same pyjamas Madeleine had on and which Gerry never told her about'

That clears it up!

by Liz Eagles 08.11.13 15:20

It never ceases to amaze me that the moment Tony Bennett makes a post the trolls come out in force.

Not everyone on this forum who questions Tony Bennett is a troll of course, quite a few supported him at his contempt of court trial by turning up to support him and voting with their feet.

Nevertheless, it's always a sure sign for me that as soon as Tony posts anything at all there's a flurry of trollish behaviour and criticism.

I disagree with Tony on many of his posts and opinions. It doesn't lessen my respect for him that he was taken to court by the McCanns, had his mouth shut by Carter Ruck and it cost him thousands of personal finance to have a voice that is still not allowed to be heard. You have to ask yourself why the 'mediocre' doctors from the Midlands picked on one person.

I can't understand for the life of me why Tony continues to post but he does. Sometimes you can't hold a good man down. It must be bloody awful to be the only person not allowed to comment. I'm not sticking up here for Tony's opinions as I don't agree with many of them. What I am sticking up for is his right to have an opinion and to voice it.

by currio 08.11.13 15:26

aquila wrote:It never ceases to amaze me that the moment Tony Bennett makes a post the trolls come out in force.

Not everyone on this forum who questions Tony Bennett is a troll of course, quite a few supported him at his contempt of court trial by turning up to support him and voting with their feet.

Nevertheless, it's always a sure sign for me that as soon as Tony posts anything at all there's a flurry of trollish behaviour and criticism.

I disagree with Tony on many of his posts and opinions. It doesn't lessen my respect for him that he was taken to court by the McCanns, had his mouth shut by Carter Ruck and it cost him thousands of personal finance to have a voice that is still not allowed to be heard. You have to ask yourself why the 'mediocre' doctors from the Midlands picked on one person.

I can't understand for the life of me why Tony continues to post but he does. Sometimes you can't hold a good man down. It must be bloody awful to be the only person not allowed to comment. I'm not sticking up here for Tony's opinions as I don't agree with many of them. What I am sticking up for is his right to have an opinion and to voice it.

If you reread what you wrote you'll realise you have just contradicted yourself.

by Liz Eagles 08.11.13 15:30

currio wrote:
aquila wrote:It never ceases to amaze me that the moment Tony Bennett makes a post the trolls come out in force.

Not everyone on this forum who questions Tony Bennett is a troll of course, quite a few supported him at his contempt of court trial by turning up to support him and voting with their feet.

Nevertheless, it's always a sure sign for me that as soon as Tony posts anything at all there's a flurry of trollish behaviour and criticism.

I disagree with Tony on many of his posts and opinions. It doesn't lessen my respect for him that he was taken to court by the McCanns, had his mouth shut by Carter Ruck and it cost him thousands of personal finance to have a voice that is still not allowed to be heard. You have to ask yourself why the 'mediocre' doctors from the Midlands picked on one person.

I can't understand for the life of me why Tony continues to post but he does. Sometimes you can't hold a good man down. It must be bloody awful to be the only person not allowed to comment. I'm not sticking up here for Tony's opinions as I don't agree with many of them. What I am sticking up for is his right to have an opinion and to voice it.
If you reread what you wrote you'll realise you have just contradicted yourself.

Why does your response not surprise me?

by TheTruthWillOut 08.11.13 15:31

@aquila:

I like to think that some of the top posters here are privy to more info than they are allowed to talk about? At least I hope that's the case because it gives me hope.

by Estelle 08.11.13 15:36

For Murat connections, you can read this link:

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

There is also a new thread entitled, Murat...revisited.

by Guest 08.11.13 15:36

aquila wrote:
currio wrote:
aquila wrote:It never ceases to amaze me that the moment Tony Bennett makes a post the trolls come out in force.

Not everyone on this forum who questions Tony Bennett is a troll of course, quite a few supported him at his contempt of court trial by turning up to support him and voting with their feet.

Nevertheless, it's always a sure sign for me that as soon as Tony posts anything at all there's a flurry of trollish behaviour and criticism.

I disagree with Tony on many of his posts and opinions. It doesn't lessen my respect for him that he was taken to court by the McCanns, had his mouth shut by Carter Ruck and it cost him thousands of personal finance to have a voice that is still not allowed to be heard. You have to ask yourself why the 'mediocre' doctors from the Midlands picked on one person.

I can't understand for the life of me why Tony continues to post but he does. Sometimes you can't hold a good man down. It must be bloody awful to be the only person not allowed to comment. I'm not sticking up here for Tony's opinions as I don't agree with many of them. What I am sticking up for is his right to have an opinion and to voice it.
If you reread what you wrote you'll realise you have just contradicted yourself.
Why does your response not surprise me?

Enough already. Just because someone doesn't agree with Tony doesn't make them a troll. The Smith sighting is emotive, people have different theories and opinions, some believe a family could not lie, some believe they could. Of course people will come on and voice their views, why shouldn't they. As Tony said we all think we are armchair sleuths, so why can't we differ in opinions. None of us know what really happened we can only guess, and evaluate what we have and what that means to each of us.

Please, let's just discuss without having a go at one another.

by Guest 08.11.13 15:40

Candyfloss.

I wouldn't want your job for all the tea in China or all the wine in New Zealand.

by Estelle 08.11.13 15:41

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@aquila:

I like to think that some of the top posters here are privy to more info than they are allowed to talk about? At least I hope that's the case because it gives me hope.

Did you see that I agreed with you about your revenge theory?

IMO there is much that we are not allowed to post. I have been lurking and posting on this case ever since May, 2007. I am now re-thinking many of the theories I have had over the years so I keep an open mind. When something does not add up, I investigate it and read everyone's theories.

by Liz Eagles 08.11.13 15:41

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@aquila:

I like to think that some of the top posters here are privy to more info than they are allowed to talk about? At least I hope that's the case because it gives me hope.

The most important thing at the moment is the outcome of the Lisbon Trial - the one that's been so buried in a frenzy of media/police activity to even acknowledge its existence.

I quite like the slow pace of this trial. There's no hurry for the truth in a libel trial. It's a civil court action.

Isn't it God-awful that Madeleine's name has come up in so many libel trials and the only outcome of those is whether you win or lose and how much money is involved.

Poor Madeleine McCann, lost to those who can't even compare themselves to vultures (the innocent animals on this planet who have a purpose).

by Liz Eagles 08.11.13 15:48

candyfloss wrote:
aquila wrote:
currio wrote:
aquila wrote:It never ceases to amaze me that the moment Tony Bennett makes a post the trolls come out in force.

Not everyone on this forum who questions Tony Bennett is a troll of course, quite a few supported him at his contempt of court trial by turning up to support him and voting with their feet.

Nevertheless, it's always a sure sign for me that as soon as Tony posts anything at all there's a flurry of trollish behaviour and criticism.

I disagree with Tony on many of his posts and opinions. It doesn't lessen my respect for him that he was taken to court by the McCanns, had his mouth shut by Carter Ruck and it cost him thousands of personal finance to have a voice that is still not allowed to be heard. You have to ask yourself why the 'mediocre' doctors from the Midlands picked on one person.

I can't understand for the life of me why Tony continues to post but he does. Sometimes you can't hold a good man down. It must be bloody awful to be the only person not allowed to comment. I'm not sticking up here for Tony's opinions as I don't agree with many of them. What I am sticking up for is his right to have an opinion and to voice it.
If you reread what you wrote you'll realise you have just contradicted yourself.
Why does your response not surprise me?

Enough already. Just because someone doesn't agree with Tony doesn't make them a troll. The Smith sighting is emotive, people have different theories and opinions, some believe a family could not lie, some believe they could. Of course people will come on and voice their views, why shouldn't they. As Tony said we all think we are armchair sleuths, so why can't we differ in opinions. None of us know what really happened we can only guess, and evaluate what we have and what that means to each of us.

Please, let's just discuss without having a go at one another.

If you read my post Candyfloss you might understand that I'm actually being quite neutral.

by Guest 08.11.13 15:52

Okeydokey wrote:Before we disappear down too many rabbit holes, can someone give a citation for the Smiths knowing Murat? I think I've seen the claim before, but not the evidence for that being the case.

***
If my information is correct - and I have no reason to doubt - EVERYONE in PdL knew Murat.
And I've seen no "evidence" that the Smiths played down how well they knew him ...

by BRODFB 08.11.13 16:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
It is a fact that Martin Smith knew Murat.

There is evidence that Martin Smith has minimised his degree of acquaintance with Murat.

I have concerns with this, independently the 2 statements are perfectly true whereas to me, taken together the second statement increases the level of knowledge implied in the first.

Do we assume you have knowledge of a closer relationship?

by BRODFB 08.11.13 16:07

Joss wrote:
BRODFB wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Another possibility is that the Portugese ask that as a standard question of both Portugese and holidaymakers when investigating crimes. So you will get the answer either, yes or no.
Would you concede that this possibillity is exceedingly remote and is a meaningless question?
I am still failing to grasp why it is so important if the question was asked of not?
Maybe the police were just trying to find out if the person could of been a foreigner or a local?

That is my assumption.

by thetruthbeknown 08.11.13 16:08

Este wrote:I am now re-thinking many of the theories I have had over the years so I keep an open mind. When something does not add up, I investigate it and read everyone's theories.

Thats exactly how I see it. And I know newbies like myself can be pretty annoying to those that have studied the case full on since day one, but I think sometimes going over 'old ground' can be helpful? I do apologise if im annoying sometimes to those that are well versed in the case, I do try to look on threads etc to answer questions..but sometimes I cant find what I need to know.

With the Smiths, I do think Murat is/was central..to the whole purpose of their coming forward. Im unsure about whether its 'significant' or even 'true'..One of the main things ive found difficult to understand in this case is the 'taking away' of MM, whether by abduction or concealment. In a holiday resort, I would of expected a few more collaborating 'sightings' it makes me think that she may well have not been carried very far on the night of the 3rd..maybe before or after??? Thats the confusing part for me :/

by Guest 08.11.13 16:10

BRODFB wrote:
Joss wrote:
BRODFB wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Another possibility is that the Portugese ask that as a standard question of both Portugese and holidaymakers when investigating crimes. So you will get the answer either, yes or no.
Would you concede that this possibillity is exceedingly remote and is a meaningless question?
I am still failing to grasp why it is so important if the question was asked of not?
Maybe the police were just trying to find out if the person could of been a foreigner or a local?
That is my assumption.

I think it must have been a standard question, I found another example earlier where someone (Head of Personnel at Gohlfino Restaurant) had been asked the same thing. I am sure if you trawl through more statements you will find more.

by TheTruthWillOut 08.11.13 16:13

Estelle wrote:Did you see that I agreed with you about your revenge theory?

IMO there is much that we are not allowed to post. I have been lurking and posting on this case ever since May, 2007. I am now re-thinking many of the theories I have had over the years so I keep an open mind. When something does not add up, I investigate it and read everyone's theories.

Sorry. Thread is moving very fast and I missed that part of your post!

It just seems on one hand there is a gradual systematic elimination of all leads by SY, whether real or not, leading directly back to the Tapas 9. But on the other hand we have SY categorically stating publicly the McCann's are not suspects. (though it doesn't eliminate the other 7, I guess)

I'm just not very good at being an armchair sleuth and am in a permanent state of confusion with all the possible theories. sad1

by Guest 08.11.13 16:14

thetruthbeknown wrote: One of the main things ive found difficult to understand in this case is the 'taking away' of MM, whether by abduction or concealment. In a holiday resort, I would of expected a few more collaborating 'sightings' it makes me think that she may well have not been carried very far on the night of the 3rd..maybe before or after??? Thats the confusing part for me :/

That's true, it's why I find occasional comparisons to James Bulger so irksome. James Bulger was seen with his abductors, and his body eventually found.

The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?