mccanns case and censorship

[Gem2626]

As I said before, the McCann defence is based entirely on tearing other evidence apart.

No one knows where Gerry was at 10 because the reconstruction never took place...in fact, Gerry's whereabouts for most of 3 May are still uncertain.

The reconstruction never took place because the McCann refused to cooperate.

The truth is now lost to the mists of time...which was the point.

I have absolutely no doubt that Martin Smith did not lose sleep over a "60%" certainty...he was 100% certain, otherwise why lose sleep and go to the trouble of contacting the police again?

It is so predictable that now Martin Smith is wrong/rubbish/mistaken too.

Everyone is, except the McCann.

:banghead:

If Gerry was missing from the hotel at 10pm then that would have been all over the papers by now. It has nothing to do with the reconstruction all the PJ had to do is ask each independent witness whether they saw Gerry at the hotel when Kate raised the alarm. You don't need a whole reconstruction for that.

Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction. Where are you getting this information?

You can find all of the information about the reconstruction here from the original sources
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077838/Rebuttal of "Fact" 23

If Martin Smith was 100% sure of this sighting he would have said 100% or maybe even 99% for safe measures. Instead he has said 60-80% which is a fair amount lower.

No one is saying that Martin Smith is wrong. This information is coming straight from HIM. He is saying there is a 20-40% chance he could be wrong. You can't just dismiss his certainty and change that to 0% because you feel like it.

And of course he's going to lose sleep. If he thought there was a 10% chance it was Gerry he'd probably still have lost sleep. He potentially saw Madeleine's abductor poor guy.

Again, Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry couldn't be accounted for? That would throw suspicion right at them.

 

[badhorsie]

BBM

The Smith family did not unquestionably see the same thing. Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. Therefore he did not unquestionably think it was Gerry.

No one else in the family made statements saying they thought it was Gerry. In fact Martin Smith says in his statement that 2 of the adults there did not think it was Gerry. According to him his wife agreed (60-80%? less..more?) that it was Gerry yet she hasn't made a statement. Which is kind of strange considering this is a missing child we're talking about. This leads me to believe she is less sure that it was Gerry than he is.

Where is Gerry placed at 10? Seeing as the alarm was raised for a missing Madeleine at 10 the PJ would have most certainly have asked witnesses where Gerry was at this time. Have any independent witnesses come forward and said that Gerry was not at the tapas bar when he says he was.

Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry was in the process of disposing of Madeleine's body???

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Does anything about this case make any sense?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Does anything about this case make any sense?

None.

Least of all the unswerving belief based on exactly nothing but denial and emotion, that the McCann must be innocent.

I must say I get rather tired of posting and reposting facts, and having them torn apart by ignorant, unlinked, and just plain incorrect rebuttals.

If people wish to defend the McCann, defend them...but you cannot do it by obliterating and overlooking the facts.

Defend them in a positive manner. Provide evidence for your theories (we always do).

In reality, the McCann supporter can only defend by offence. They can only support their own views by tearing down or muddying facts, and slurring the innocent. They offer absolutely nothing by way of PROOF of their own, yet treat the PROOF we do have as "ludicrous".

That's the real mystery...how these people have managed to engender such blind faith despite undeniable deceit and evidence.

:waitasec:

:cow:

 

[Clutchbag]

I don't understand. What is this meant to prove? That someone shares the same opinion?

Its not meant to prove anything at all, its a post belonging in this thread which is called *censorship*
:moo:

 

[SapphireSteel]

If Gerry was missing from the hotel at 10pm then that would have been all over the papers by now. It has nothing to do with the reconstruction all the PJ had to do is ask each independent witness whether they saw Gerry at the hotel when Kate raised the alarm. You don't need a whole reconstruction for that.

Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction. Where are you getting this information?

You can find all of the information about the reconstruction here from the original sources
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077838/Rebuttal of "Fact" 23

If Martin Smith was 100% sure of this sighting he would have said 100% or maybe even 99% for safe measures. Instead he has said 60-80% which is a fair amount lower.

No one is saying that Martin Smith is wrong. This information is coming straight from HIM. He is saying there is a 20-40% chance he could be wrong. You can't just dismiss his certainty and change that to 0% because you feel like it.

And of course he's going to lose sleep. If he thought there was a 10% chance it was Gerry he'd probably still have lost sleep. He potentially saw Madeleine's abductor poor guy.

Again, Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry couldn't be accounted for? That would throw suspicion right at them.

Do you not see the irony of your post?

There shouldn't even be a Smith sighting.

If there is a Smith sighting, it should not be of Gerry...not even 5% possibility! Or 2%! It should be "not Gerry"...not 20%, or even 1%!

80% certainty is very, very high....10% certainty would be very high too, because Gerry was not supposed to be there at all in the first place!

What is 20% of a human body? Feet and ankles? Ok so his feet and ankles cannot be definitely identified, but the rest of him was!!!!!

If Mr Smith had any doubt it was Gerry, he would NOT have called the Leicetershire Police and offered to return to PDL, nor llost sleep, got anxious and agitated, and had a flashback when he saw Gerry on tv.

Absurd. Now the Smiths are unreliable too.

:banghead:

I say again...instead of continually tearing down what we do know, the evidence and sightings we do have, why can't anyone counteract it with a sighting of someone who say, did not look 80% like Gerry carrying Madeleine?

It can't be done, because there isn't one.

There is absolutely no proof or evidence or sightings on an intruder.

 

[Clutchbag]

Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction. Where are you getting this information?

.

they couldnt refuse to do one, it was never up to them as arguidos, they would have been legally obliged to do one but their friends scuppered it. It is video documented that theywere not keen and didnt really want one with various reasons given, eg people have to realise what theyhave already been through, ,going back would be too hard, what good would it do a year later etcetc,the videos have been posted on here umpteen times, do give me a shout if you cant find them, so much for leaving no stone unturned, and that goes for all their friends who were invited by the police to go back for onebut theywere all too busy, they too having said they would do anything to help hmmmmm

And a year after all this they wentback with some of their friends to do their so called personal reconstruction,aka channel four documentary called maddie was here, found on you tube

 

[Gem2626]

Do you not see the irony of your post?

There shouldn't even be a Smith sighting.

If there is a Smith sighting, it should not be of Gerry...not even 5% possibility! Or 2%! It should be "not Gerry"...not 20%, or even 1%!

80% certainty is very, very high....10% certainty would be very high too, because Gerry was not supposed to be there at all in the first place!

What is 20% of a human body? Feet and ankles? Ok so his feet and ankles cannot be definitely identified, but the rest of him was!!!!!

If Mr Smith had any doubt it was Gerry, he would NOT have called the Leicetershire Police and offered to return to PDL, nor llost sleep, got anxious and agitated, and had a flashback when he saw Gerry on tv.

Absurd. Now the Smiths are unreliable too.

:banghead:

I say again...instead of continually tearing down what we do know, the evidence and sightings we do have, why can't anyone counteract it with a sighting of someone who say, did not look 80% like Gerry carrying Madeleine?

It can't be done, because there isn't one.

There is absolutely no proof or evidence or sightings on an intruder.

There is nothing majorly distinctive about Gerry mcCann that he couldn't be confused with someone else besides he didn't identify Gerry on his appearance he identified him by the way the child was carried and his stance.

I'm far from saying the Smith sighting was unreliable. Martin Smith is saying himself that he has a 20-40% doubt that it was not Gerry. Because of this doubt his statement wouldn't make it into court.

IMO there is just no way anyone would be stupid enough to raise the alarm at the same time as someone is off disposing of the body.

Here on Websleuths you can see the number of people who have disappeared where there has been no trace of them. The abductor needed 5 mins max to get in and out and off. If Madeleine is still alive then I very much doubt that she's be out in public.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There is nothing majorly distinctive about Gerry mcCann that he couldn't be confused with someone else besides he didn't identify Gerry on his appearance he identified him by the way the child was carried and his stance.

I'm far from saying the Smith sighting was unreliable. Martin Smith is saying himself that he has a 20-40% doubt that it was not Gerry. Because of this doubt his statement wouldn't make it into court.

IMO there is just no way anyone would be stupid enough to raise the alarm at the same time as someone is off disposing of the body.

Here on Websleuths you can see the number of people who have disappeared where there has been no trace of them. The abductor needed 5 mins max to get in and out and off. If Madeleine is still alive then I very much doubt that she's be out in public.

It wasn't the same time.

The Smiths saw "Gerry" at 21.55, they originally thought it was earlier than that.

The alarm wasn't raised until after 10.

Many people in the resort were not aware until 10.30.

The police were not called until 10.40.

There was time.

If the Smiths had've seen "Gerry" at say, 10.15, I would agree with you.

They did not.

There was time.

 

[Gem2626]

It wasn't the same time.

The Smiths saw "Gerry" at 21.55, they originally thought it was earlier than that.

The alarm wasn't raised until after 10.

Many people in the resort were not aware until 10.30.

The police were not called until 10.40.

There was time.

If the Smiths had've seen "Gerry" at say, 10.15, I would agree with you.

They did not.

There was time.

Ignoring potential witnesses at the hotel and the people searching around the hotel.

Smith sighting is at 9.55.

So from 9.55 until 10.40 (45 mins) Gerry walked to his destination, disposed of a body successfully enough that it has never been found, in a country he was not familiar with? That 45 minutes is reduced due to walking time and then having to sneak back into the apartment cautiously and get changed out of his beige trousers.

Where exactly did Gerry dispose of Madeleine within this short time that she has never been found?

It doesn't seem likely that barely knowing the area you would pick your dead child up and walk the streets looking for a good place to dispose of her let alone actually find one.

Nor does it seem likely that Kate would raise the alarm at exactly the same time and have to face questioning as to where her husband had disappeared to. For all they knew the police could have arrived in 10 mins and been straight out on the streets patrolling.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There is nothing majorly distinctive about Gerry mcCann that he couldn't be confused with someone else besides he didn't identify Gerry on his appearance he identified him by the way the child was carried and his stance.

I'm far from saying the Smith sighting was unreliable. Martin Smith is saying himself that he has a 20-40% doubt that it was not Gerry. Because of this doubt his statement wouldn't make it into court.

IMO there is just no way anyone would be stupid enough to raise the alarm at the same time as someone is off disposing of the body.

Here on Websleuths you can see the number of people who have disappeared where there has been no trace of them. The abductor needed 5 mins max to get in and out and off. If Madeleine is still alive then I very much doubt that she's be out in public.

Gerry only needed 5 minutes too.

Yet you claim on another thread, that he "didn't have time".

:cow:

 

[Gem2626]

Gerry only needed 5 minutes too.

Yet you claim on another thread, that he "didn't have time".

:cow:

Gerry needed far more than 5 minutes. He had to dispose of the body so well it would never be found, in a country he barely knew, on foot.

The abductor had to grab Madeleine which would have taken 5 mins max. He didn't have the urgency to immediately dispose of her body all he needed to do was get out and away into hiding so he would not be caught. Considering he most likely knew the local area well and had somewhere he could hide he had a whole lot more time later on (and possibly transport) which would have been a huge advantage for him.

 

[brit1981]

an abductor needed to walk in to the flat through the unlocked door, pick the child up, and walk out again. That would have taken less than five minutes. It is likely he was also seen.

gerry would have had to go into the flat, pick up a body, go out of the flat, and walk to somewhere publicly accessible and hide the body so well it was never found, then walk back to the flat so jeremy wilkins could see him at the bottom of the patio steps. No-one saw him doing all this either. It would have taken a ot longer than five minutes to do that, and woudl have meant given the time taken to go into the flat etc he hid the body a maximum of a minutes walk away.

If people are so sure the mccanns are involved, then why do they not present accurate facts, and instead rely on flase hoods.
So we we have people falsy claiming that the dna finds mean there was a 15 out of 19 chance it was madeleine in the car, then we have people falsy claiming the dogs only alert to cadavers (although this is at odds with their claims madeleine was in the car), then we have people falsy claiming they have evidence of cover-ups involving the FSS, US ambassador, two british governments, two portuguese governments, scotland yard, the mccanns, the mccanns friends, the mccanns friends friends, the mccanns friends friends mother, as well as those involved in the jersey care home investigation, that hair belonging to madeleine was found int he car, that the smiths positively identified gerry as carryign a child, that the fund could legally have been a charity, that the mccanns libel actions are unusual etc? Not one of these claims made by those claiming the mccanns are involved are true, yet they keep repeating them and then complaining when other people point out they are untrue as if pointing out falsehoods is somehow suspicious. If peopel are convinced the mccanns are guilty then provide actual evidence, not just repeats of falsehoods with a in my opinion" tagged on. Its fine to say soemthing is an opinion if it is an actual opinion, but not if one is putting soemthign up as a fact. beside sif soemthign si true then the evidence shoudl be there, and people should not have to or want to retreat behind a shield of its just my opinion. If it is just your opinion, then it is not fact nor is it evidence.

 

[Gem2626]

Amy Tierney creche worker
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

Lyndsey Jayne Johnson, Creche Supervisor
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure.


This procedure consists of dividing the site into several areas, which are allocated to various of the company's employees to start searching for the missing child. To that effect, the informant explains that, around 10.25pm, the date indicated, the said procedure was begun, dividing the whole site into three distinct areas, namely the north zone, the central zone (including the area of the company) and all the roads surrounding the company and which go as far as the beach. Five of the company's employees were mobilised to coordinate the searches, helped by various people ( other employees, tourists and residents)

Lots of people out on the streets searching!

Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo, a Tapas bar waiter
I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.?

I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman (Dianne Webster), that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

The alarm was raised at 22H00 we can assume the later time is more accurate based on everyone but Dianne Webster having left the table alone and the restaurant worker already knowing that Madeleine was missing

So... The Smith sighting is a 21.55 Gerry is placed at the hotel at 22.00 or shortly after by a restaurant worker. He is then placed at the reception at 22.20 by the creche worker. The phone call to the creche supervisor backs this time up.

Based on these witness statements by people that knew Gerry and saw his face against Martin Smith who thought it was Gerry based on how he held the child and the fact that he himself said that he was not 100% sure (60-80%) It was NOT Gerry that Martin Smith saw.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Amy Tierney creche worker
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 – 35 minutes to arrive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

Lyndsey Jayne Johnson, Creche Supervisor
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure.


This procedure consists of dividing the site into several areas, which are allocated to various of the company's employees to start searching for the missing child. To that effect, the informant explains that, around 10.25pm, the date indicated, the said procedure was begun, dividing the whole site into three distinct areas, namely the north zone, the central zone (including the area of the company) and all the roads surrounding the company and which go as far as the beach. Five of the company's employees were mobilised to coordinate the searches, helped by various people ( other employees, tourists and residents)

Lots of people out on the streets searching!

Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo, a Tapas bar waiter
I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.?

I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman (Dianne Webster), that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

The alarm was raised at 22H00 we can assume the later time is more accurate based on everyone but Dianne Webster having left the table alone and the restaurant worker already knowing that Madeleine was missing

So... The Smith sighting is a 21.55 Gerry is placed at the hotel at 22.00 or shortly after by a restaurant worker. He is then placed at the reception at 22.20 by the creche worker. The phone call to the creche supervisor backs this time up.

Based on these witness statements by people that knew Gerry and saw his face against Martin Smith who thought it was Gerry based on how he held the child and the fact that he himself said that he was not 100% sure (60-80%) It was NOT Gerry that Martin Smith saw.

Not one word of this means that Gerry could not have been carrying Madeleine at 21.55 or slightly earlier, as the Smiths originally believed.

From the PJ Final Report -

. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).

. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).

~sbm~

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

That is police speak for "people were lying".

:banghead:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

But of course, in the mind of the McCann Supporter, it was the entire PJ and the British Police and the dogs who were lying, not them.

:cow:

Of course, nothing explains why these investigating agencies would be lying...just to be mean to the McCann I suppose.

:dunno:

 

[Gem2626]

Not one word of this means that Gerry could not have been carrying Madeleine at 21.55 or slightly earlier, as the Smiths originally believed.

From the PJ Final Report -

. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).

. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).

~sbm~

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

That is police speak for "people were lying".

:banghead:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

But of course, in the mind of the McCann Supporter, it was the entire PJ and the British Police and the dogs who were lying, not them.

:cow:

Of course, nothing explains why these investigating agencies would be lying...just to be mean to the McCann I suppose.

:dunno:

Smith Family Sightings

Martin Smith
Says they went for dinner then went To kelly's bar. They left at 21.55 as son was traveling early the next day.
States that when he saw the man carrying the child it it would have been around 22.00

Aoife Smith
Says they went for dinner, left the restaurant at 21.30. Headed towards Kelly's bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
Around 22.00 they left the bar.

"she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland"

Peter Smith
Says they left the bar between 21.50-22.00. States that when he passed the individual carrying the child it would have been 21.55-22.00.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

There is nothing in their statements to suggest that it may have been earlier than 21.55 if anything it would have been slightly later. All their statements are consistent.

All the hotel staffs statements are consistent and fit in with the alarm being raised at around 10pm and Gerry being at the scene from that time onwards.

Even if the Smith sighting was earlier there would still not be enough time for Gerry to dispose of Madeleine's body, on foot, in a country he barely knew.

I would be interested to hear an actual timeline and way that Gerry Mccann could have disposed of Madeleine so well her body has never been found within this time frame.

I'm not discussing anything else you mentioned in this post because it gets confusing. This is about rebutting the Smith sighting.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Smith Family Sightings

Martin Smith
Says they went for dinner then went To kelly's bar. They left at 21.55 as son was traveling early the next day.
States that when he saw the man carrying the child it it would have been around 22.00

Aoife Smith
Says they went for dinner, left the restaurant at 21.30. Headed towards Kelly's bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
Around 22.00 they left the bar.

"she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland"

Peter Smith
Says they left the bar between 21.50-22.00. States that when he passed the individual carrying the child it would have been 21.55-22.00.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

There is nothing in their statements to suggest that it may have been earlier than 21.55 if anything it would have been slightly later. All their statements are consistent.

All the hotel staffs statements are consistent and fit in with the alarm being raised at around 10pm and Gerry being at the scene from that time onwards.

Even if the Smith sighting was earlier there would still not be enough time for Gerry to dispose of Madeleine's body, on foot, in a country he barely knew.

I would be interested to hear an actual timeline and way that Gerry Mccann could have disposed of Madeleine so well her body has never been found within this time frame.

I'm not discussing anything else you mentioned in this post because it gets confusing. This is about rebutting the Smith sighting.

Everyone would be interested to hear a timeline. We have timelines, but they are confused and contradictory.

I would be interested to know if the Smiths had actually updated their watches to Portugese time in the first place...it is never mentioned.

The timing for *whoever* to get from the OC to the beach and back again is 15 minutes.

It remains unclear exactly what time Kate started screaming..."around 10" is the closest we can get.

Some staff did not hear the ruckus until 10.30.

As far as Gerry not being familiar with the area - the McCanns dumped their children in daycare and spent their days jogging, playing tennis, and wandering around PDL.

They both jogged all over the nearby beach and hills.

They knew it well.

There is also suspicion he placed her not on the beach, but buried in some roadworks between the beach and the resort.

The dogs were not brought in until the next day.

We know for a fact the McCanns were left completely alone from 4am onwards and that they went for a walk together at 6am.

Plenty of time to move a tiny body.

If there was a car or apartment they had access to, it's a matter of opening a door and shutting it again.

All they had to do is hide her from sight...I've even wondered if they put her up ^ somewhere. People do not look above them when searching for lost toddlers. The searches on 3 May consisted of Mark Warner staff and guests stumbling around in the dark looking for a wandering child, not a hidden body.

The McCanns were made arguidos because the British and Portugese police developed evidence (which remains secret) that implicated them.

They could not have done this if the McCanns had rock solid alibis.

It is clear from the PJ report, that they did not have rock solid alibis, at all. It is also clear that due to the noncooperation of the Tapas 9, that a reconstruction could not be done, which was necessary to clarify events of that day.

To this day, no one knows what Gerry did on 3 May 2007.

 

[Gem2626]

Everyone would be interested to hear a timeline. We have timelines, but they are confused and contradictory.

I don't see any timelines of how the Smith sighting fits in with this being Gerry?


I would be interested to know if the Smiths had actually updated their watches to Portugese time in the first place...it is never mentioned.

There were 4 of them relating the same time. They had reason to know the correct time. Some of the group were flying back the next day. If all their watches had been kept at GMT then they would have been aware of that every time they looked at their watch. They had been on holiday for some days and would have got used to that. That's from personal experience.

Even if they hadn't changed their watches then their sighting would have been at 20.55-21.00 and Gerry was talking to Jeremy Wilkins at 21.05 so again would rule Gerry out.


The timing for *whoever* to get from the OC to the beach and back again is 15 minutes.

That might be true if you're walking straight there, turning round and coming straight back. Not when your carry a dead child half the way and then having to dispose of her body.

It remains unclear exactly what time Kate started screaming..."around 10" is the closest we can get.

Some staff did not hear the ruckus until 10.30.

Some of the staff yes but Gerry was placed at the hotel looking between 21.30-22.00 (which we can assume was more close to 22.00). That member of staff was told at this time that the rest of the tapas 9 had gone to look for Madeleine. Gerry was seen again at 22.20 when the police were called, Pamela Fenn says she spoke to him from her balcony at 22.30 and then not long after that the police arrived.


Staff have placed Gerry at the hotel, Martin Smith thought 60-80% that it was Gerry he saw. No others in his group have made a statement to say they thought it was Gerry. 2 members of the group according to Martin Smith did not think it was Gerry.


As far as Gerry not being familiar with the area - the McCanns dumped their children in daycare and spent their days jogging, playing tennis, and wandering around PDL.

They both jogged all over the nearby beach and hills.

They knew it well.

They'd been there 6 days. There's knowing a place you've been at for 6 days and knowing a place n 6 days well enough to hide a body that has never been found.

There is also suspicion he placed her not on the beach, but buried in some roadworks between the beach and the resort.

This comes from the media and was ruled out in the media. There are no official statements. I have read that the PJ interviewed the foreman of the roadworks who said he personally checked. The PJ apparently didn't bother checking himself. I also saw in the media that the hole was not big enough.


I'm not going to find the links because it comes from the media. I'd like to think that the PJ did rule this out though. It wouldn't have been that hard to do.

The dogs were not brought in until the next day.

We know for a fact the McCanns were left completely alone from 4am onwards and that they went for a walk together at 6am.

Plenty of time to move a tiny body.

That would rule out the Smith sighting then

If there was a car or apartment they had access to, it's a matter of opening a door and shutting it again.

Again that would rule out the Smith sighting.There is no evidence that they had access to a car at this time or that they had an unknown friend with a car. The only other people's apartments they had access to were in the hotel.

All they had to do is hide her from sight...I've even wondered if they put her up ^ somewhere. People do not look above them when searching for lost toddlers. The searches on 3 May consisted of Mark Warner staff and guests stumbling around in the dark looking for a wandering child, not a hidden body.

Again that would rule out the Smith sighting.

The McCanns were made arguidos because the British and Portugese police developed evidence (which remains secret) that implicated them.

The national director of the PJ said that this was done too hastily

They could not have done this if the McCanns had rock solid alibis.

I'm not discussing other times except for this particular time when the Smith sighting occurred otherwise it gets confusing. I can understand the police not believing what the tapas 9 claim but Gerry was placed at the hotel around this time.

It is clear from the PJ report, that they did not have rock solid alibis, at all. It is also clear that due to the noncooperation of the Tapas 9, that a reconstruction could not be done, which was necessary to clarify events of that day.

Kate and Gerry would have done the reconstruction. It was Jeremy Wilkins who said he didn't want to do it and then after seeking legal advice others in the group said they wouldn't. As far as i'm aware only the tapas 9 and Jeremy Wilkins were asked to return not the hotel staff so how would this help with alibis?



To this day, no one knows what Gerry did on 3 May 2007.

There are witnesses who have placed Gerry at certain places during the day. Again, my post was related to the Smiths and their sighting it confuses matters when people start bringing in theories for other times when that is not what is being discussed in the particular post.

 

[Clutchbag]

the live sniffer dogs rule out BOTH tanner and smith sightings as they did not trace her scent anywhere near both locations, ive always thought both were red herrings

 

[brit1981]

Not one person in the smith family id-ed Gerry. At the time they all said that as it was dark they could not see who the man was. Weeks later one of them said aas it was dark and he did not have his glasses he could nto identify the man, but going from body language he was about 60% sure it could have been Gerry, however the others in his party did not back this up, and several independent witnesses put him at the complex at this time.

And again at the time people could be made aguidos on flimsy grounds - murat and the mccanns all presented alibis but these were ignored.

So again we have to ask why people want to turn attention away from child abduction in the algarve so much that they make things up about the parents? because the rumour that gerry was positively identified by the smiths is a falsehood.

 

[SapphireSteel]

the live sniffer dogs rule out BOTH tanner and smith sightings as they did not trace her scent anywhere near both locations, ive always thought both were red herrings

No.

The way my logical mind works, they both saw Gerry.

Tanner knew she saw Gerry and tried to cover it up.

I can't figure out how they did it either, but they did. I think it likely that Tanner was lookout, but why? I have no clue.

:dunno:

Her behaviour afterwards did disturb me though. She enjoyed the media attention as long as she was calling the shots. She even had a film crew to her home, more than once.

This to me is remarkable. At the end of the day, a little girl is missing, you were there, you're clearly being dishonest, and you're going on the telly?

:what:

Strange. But then so is the entire thing.

The Smith sighting and Tanner lying are the things I can't get past nor explain. Nor can I explain away the cadaver dogs, the evidence of refrigeration and later movement, the positive DNA results, the mistruths regarding the shutters and the doors, the discrepancies visit by Payne earlier in the evening, the testimony of the Gaspars, the inability of two educated medical professionals to realise leaving their three babies alone and defenceless night after night is neglect at it's worst.

There's a lot I can't explain, and I agree with Amaral. The only way to clarify exactly what happened, and who did what that night, would be a reconstruction.

The Tapas 9 refused to cooperate. Around that same time, Payne mentioned their "pact".

2+2=4.

ETA: re the staff sightings - the reason they call them "staff" is they were working at the time, not watching their customers every movement. I worked in busy restaurants myself and you don't even notice an empty chair, people go to the toilet. None of them can be relied upon...except the chef in the kitchen maybe, who stated he had to reheat a steak meal from that table because someone was gone "a long time" ie it was stone cold. Chefs HATE reheating steak...it ruins it. He would have been tut tutting the entire time.

:cow:

:banghead: