The Smith sighting revisited.

[pegasus]

We have Jane Tanner walking up the road anytime between 2045 and 2115 (the only independent timing I am aware of). She sees a bloke carrying a child across his forearms which, as has been debated at length on this forum ,would not be an easy task with a 3-4 year old. The guy has longish (down to his collar) dark hair and is walking approximately east of north east.
Then we have a family seeing another guy with shorter dark carrying a child up against his body the child’s head over his left shoulder at about 2205-2215 (based on the credit card transaction) walking roughly south of south east some 250 to 300 metres to the south of the Jane Tanner sighting.
The Metropolitan Police Service says that the man Jane Tanner saw has been accounted for
(Crimewatch).

The postulation is that the Metropolitan Police Service has failed to account for the man Jane Tanner really saw because the guy who they state they have accounted for was not he.
The “real” guy crossing the road with Madeleine over his arms sees Jane, and possibly Gerald & Jeremy, thinks he will be rumbled and hides/walks about for anything between 50 minutes and 90 minutes before bumping into the Smith family and disappearing into the ether.
That seems to be a fair summary of your position from your posts would you not agree?

An excellent analysis Alice. Good that you have used the restaurant credit card transaction to estimate the time of the Smith sighting.
But I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation).
Never.
The bizarre thing is that all versions of both types of theory are fixated upon a transportation method which never, never happens.
Do the last time of known visual sighting (approx 21.05), combined with scientific considerations, indicate that the time of exit was at minimum 22.30, or later?

[pathfinder73]

An excellent analysis Alice. Good that you have used the restaurant credit card transaction to estimate the time of the Smith sighting.
But I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation).
Never.
The bizarre thing is that all versions of both types of theory are fixated upon a transportation method which never, never happens.
Do the last time of known visual sighting (approx 21.05), combined with scientific considerations, indicate that the time of exit was at minimum 22.30, or later?

You've found the answer yourself Pegasus. "I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction."

If it wasn't abduction what was it? The alternative an inside job. If it was an inside job what do you need? The answer is a good alibi to rule you out. How do you get an alibi? By being with other people at the time of the crime. How do you move somebody whilst keeping an alibi? The opportunity was on a check when away from the table/alibi. Because of checking time constraint and getting back to the table a second move was required to move the evidence further away from the crime scene. That leads you to Smithman and open carrying the missing child.

Smithman will never come forward because he's guilty. There is no conspiracy with a family of nine. This case is simple. Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann quickly away from where the others were searching on his second move in the first searches. Everything connects with two moves at different times in order to keep your alibi.

[misty]

You've found the answer yourself Pegasus. "I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction."

If it wasn't abduction what was it? The alternative an inside job. If it was an inside job what do you need? The answer is a good alibi to rule you out. How do you get an alibi? By being with other people at the time of the crime. How do you move somebody whilst keeping an alibi? The opportunity was on a check when away from the table/alibi. Because of checking time constraint a second move was required to move the evidence further away from the crime scene. That leads you to Smithman and open carrying the missing child.

Smithman will never come forward because he's guilty. There is no conspiracy with a family of nine. This case is simple. Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann quickly away from where the others were searching on his second move in the first searches. Everything connects with two moves at different times in order to keep your alibi.

Do you really believe an Irish family only spent 20 minutes in the pub?

[pegasus]

You've found the answer yourself Pegasus. "I would point out that open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction."

If it wasn't abduction what was it? The alternative an inside job. If it was an inside job what do you need? The answer is a good alibi to rule you out. How do you get an alibi? By being with other people at the time of the crime. How do you move somebody whilst keeping an alibi? The opportunity was on a check when away from the table/alibi. Because of checking time constraint a second move was required to move the evidence further away from the crime scene. That leads you to Smithman and open carrying the missing child.

Smithman will never come forward because he's guilty. There is no conspiracy with a family of nine. This case is simple. Smithman was carrying Madeleine McCann quickly away from where the others were searching on his second move in the first searches. Everything connects with two moves at different times in order to keep your alibi.

What I  posted was "... open carrying in arms never occurs in cases of abduction (nor in cases of occultation)."

Look at the Huelva occultation - the perp was very low IQ - but even he was not stupid enough to use open carrying in arms. Are you claiming the perp in this case was lower IQ than delValle? I doubt it.

[pathfinder73]

Do you really believe an Irish family only spent 20 minutes in the pub?

Kelly's Bar was the last bar before calling it a night. Some were flying back early the next morning. They arrived at around 9:30 (Dolphin restaurant receipt 9:27) and stayed for 30 minutes and left at around 10pm. So that connects to a 10:02/03 sighting time.

[misty]

Kelly's Bar was the last bar before calling it a night. Some were flying back early the next morning. They arrived at around 9:30 (Dolphin restaurant receipt 9:27) and stayed for 30 minutes and left at around 10pm. So that connects to a 10:02/03 sighting time.

If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as  before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint.
Smithman does not exist.

[pegasus]

If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as  before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint.
Smithman does not exist.

Good points. The logical conclusion from your post would be that Smithman does exist, and was seen at about 10.15pm?

[colombosstogey]

If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as  before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint.
Smithman does not exist.

I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.

Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.

Right i think its about 5.30.

Oh oops it 05.40 lol.

That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.

We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?

The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?

The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them.
They could have easily have said they were there to check on her.
Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............

If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.

This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.

If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.

a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used.
b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.

So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?

a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......

Non of it makes sense.

And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.

Pretend all is well.

All go back to apartments.

During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.

Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.

The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.

To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.

The only other scenario for me is bizarre.

Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.

Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.

Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.

Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?

So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.

IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.

So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?

My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£

No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.

[Eleanor]

I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.

Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.

Right i think its about 5.30.

Oh oops it 05.40 lol.

That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.

We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?

The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?

The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them.
They could have easily have said they were there to check on her.
Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............

If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.

This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.

If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.

a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used.
b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.

So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?

a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......

Non of it makes sense.

And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.

Pretend all is well.

All go back to apartments.

During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.

Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.

The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.

To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.

The only other scenario for me is bizarre.

Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.

Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.

Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.

Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?

So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.

IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.

So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?

My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£

No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.

Good post.  Nothing wrong with your brain. You have managed to make some sense out of what is a confusing situation.

[pathfinder73]

If they moved with Swiss precision, I would agree. However, you are talking about a family with young children and a pregnant lady in tow. 30 minutes to move from restaurant to pub, complete with all belongings & bathroom breaks, order & drink 2 rounds, leave pub as  before and reach the rendezvous point with Smithman in 30 minutes is pushing it rather. Many Irish I've served take 30 minutes to order & pay for a pint.
Smithman does not exist.

Good points. The logical conclusion from your post would be that Smithman does exist, and was seen at about 10.15pm?

Aoife's statement clearly says what happened. She was there not you!

— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night.

Dolphin restaurant is next to Kelly's Bar (see pic) - Dolphin receipt 9:27

[Wonderfulspam]

And that leads to an estimate sighting time of 10:03. Fascinating! Another one of those strange coincidences 

Where was Gerry immediately after Kate found Madeleine gone at 10pm?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3629.0

&

Smithman was carrying a child with long sleeved pyjamas.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5018.msg177075#msg177075

 

[Alice Purjorick]

Do you really believe an Irish family only spent 20 minutes in the pub?

Oh dear! stereotypical racism I see I thought the forum had rules about that? 
You think a person as you stereotype is incapable of downing two pints of Smithwicks in 20 minutes?
Your having a larf 

[DCI]

Aoife's statement clearly says what happened. She was there not you!

— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night.

Dolphin restaurant is next to Kelly's Bar (see pic) - Dolphin receipt 9:27

Seems Peter and Martin again contradict Aofie's statement.

Peter Smith

— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.

Martin Smith

— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short. The walk took him a few minutes. In 'Kelly's Bar' they consumed some drinks. They left that establishment around 21H55 as his son would be travelling very early the next day. This bar is located on Calheta Street.


Is a 12 year old a reliable witness? Why wasn't the 13 year old asked to give a statement?
Would be interesting to know where the other 6 were walking in comparison to the above.

[Wonderfulspam]

around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.

around 21H50/22H00.

around 21H55

Not much of a contradiction really, is it.

You really don't like the Smiths sighting, do you DCI.

[DCI]

around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.

around 21H50/22H00.

around 21H55

Not much of a contradiction really, is it.

You really don't like the Smiths sighting, do you DCI.

Aofie's says around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes. The other 2 say 2100. Obviously you didn't want to read that bit as its a contradiction.
You seem to like Aofie's cos it fits what you want to.
On the contrary I do like the Smith sighting