Timeline May 3rd

[Venturi Swirl]

Perhaps you could factor in the staff witness statement that states they left earlier.

You’d then have to factor in the nanny’s statements afterwards that then throw the timings out again.  Who are you going to base the timeline on?

[Venturi Swirl]

Note the word "reportedly" in my post...

Here's how Amaral reports it in his book:

JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night.

And here is where it is reported that it was definitely "George" she saw.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXkK9R0iq0

9:46 When Tanner sees the man she bursts into tears and says that is definitely who she saw.

you do know the man is an inveterate liar don’t you?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

you do know the man is an inveterate liar don’t you?

Apart from Kate's book (which I personally don't find convincing) I've not seen any evidence he is making it up that Tanner initially IDs Robert Murat. What would he have to gain from making this up?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

You’d then have to factor in the nanny’s statements afterwards that then throw the timings out again.  Who are you going to base the timeline on?

I think you have to conclude that the T7/T9 timeline is inconsistent (as you would expect from nine friends on holiday) and look instead for concrete evidence.

[Eleanor]

Note the word "reportedly" in my post...

Here's how Amaral reports it in his book:

JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night.

And here is where it is reported that it was definitely "George" she saw.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYXkK9R0iq0

9:46 When Tanner sees the man she bursts into tears and says that is definitely who she saw.

Sorry, these won't do as reliable Cites.

[Wonderfulspam]

Sorry, these won't do as reliable Cites.

You asked for cites.

He gave you two.

You never said they had to be reliable.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Sorry, these won't do as reliable Cites.

I said "reportedly" and showed you exactly where it was REPORTED!! What more would you like?

[Venturi Swirl]

I think you have to conclude that the T7/T9 timeline is inconsistent (as you would expect from nine friends on holiday) and look instead for concrete evidence.

Go on then.  What’s the concrete evidence that means Gerry was not at the table at the time of the Smithman sighting?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Go on then.  What’s the concrete evidence that means Gerry was not at the table at the time of the Smithman sighting?

It's not a smoking gun but one independent witness believes that Smithman was GM. The standard defence to this is "no he was at the Tapas Bar"... but we seem to all agree that the timeline is unreliable i.e we can't say with certainty that he was at the Tapas Bar since he left the table at a time we're not sure of and for a length of time that no-one has yet proven.

[Venturi Swirl]

It's not a smoking gun but one independent witness believes that Smithman was GM. The standard defence to this is "no he was at the Tapas Bar"... but we seem to all agree that the timeline is unreliable i.e we can't say with certainty that he was at the Tapas Bar since he left the table at a time we're not sure of and for a length of time that no-one has yet proven.

So you think a 60% to 80% belief is concrete evidence now do you?  Why did the PJ report conclude Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant when the Smithman sighting occurred?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

So you think a 60% to 80% belief is concrete evidence now do you?  Why did the PJ report conclude Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant when the Smithman sighting occurred?

No I said it's NOT a smoking gun.

Well you've told me how inept the PJ are so that could answer your second question, perhaps.

[Venturi Swirl]

No I said it's NOT a smoking gun.

Well you've told me how inept the PJ are so that could answer your second question, perhaps.

OK the PJ were inept, on that we can both agree it seems.  You said we had to look for concrete evidence and then when I asked you for some you sighted Smith’s 60-80% sighting then agreed it was not concrete evidence.  Come back to me when you have some concrete evidence, ttfn.

[Robittybob1]

I don't know what OG are up to so who knows. What is certain is that Smithman doesn't want to reveal himself!

Did he even exist?

[barrier]

Did he even exist?

Redwood thought so,that'll do.

[Robittybob1]

Redwood thought so, that'll do.

That is a still a mistake.  I think we still need to ask did Smithman really exist?