Timeline May 3rd

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The fact remains that the Judicial Police followed the evidence and saw what you are incapable of seeing.

Any chance you could move on from this and desist miring the forum into fixations of yours which were resolved ten years ago.

Do you honestly think people here are going to take you seriously when you constantly attempt to discredit almost everything else the PJ did in this case.

[Brietta]

Do you honestly think people here are going to take you seriously when you constantly attempt to discredit almost everything else the PJ did in this case.

While understanding your chagrin because you are unable to refute the fact contained in my post, there is absolutely no excuse for sinking to the depths of personal comment.

Please desist.  Not only is it impolite, it is against forum rules.

[Venturi Swirl]

Did they all check their watches, that some of them didn't have on, at around the same time?

Around 10pm could easily be 9:50 imo

I don’t’ know, did the Smiths all check their watches at the exact time they encountered a man carrying a child?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

While understanding your chagrin because you are unable to refute the fact contained in my post, there is absolutely no excuse for sinking to the depths of personal comment.

Please desist.  Not only is it impolite, it is against forum rules.

I'm not aware that the PJ discounted the Smith sighting as a factual event. I know whilst Amaral was leading the case he saw it as significant because he was making arrangements to bring the family back to Portugal. We also know that SY describe the Smith sighting as "the centre of our focus". So who are you going with the PJ (after Amaral) or SY?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I don’t’ know, did the Smiths all check their watches at the exact time they encountered a man carrying a child?

That's the point.... "around 10pm" from both groups could be some time apart and they could still both be correct.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don’t understand why the “rare stranger abduction” proponents are so keen to discount or discredit the Smith Family sighting. More so given GM has his precise 22:03 alibi. With Tannerman accounted for surely you agree with the super detectives at SY that this is your most significant sighting of the abductor?

Why are you fixated withthe 22.03 alibi?  What is its significance?  Do you think whilst carrying a child in his arms he checked his watch at the exact moment he encountered the Smiths?  Did any of them mention this?

[Wonderfulspam]

I don’t’ know, did the Smiths all check their watches at the exact time they encountered a man carrying a child?

Indeed.

Maybe the Smith sighting was at 10:10pm, which means there's even more of a possibility it was Gerry, because he was out searching then.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Why are you fixated withthe 22.03 alibi?  What is its significance?  Do you think whilst carrying a child in his arms he checked his watch at the exact moment he encountered the Smiths?  Did any of them mention this?

It's an unusually precise time in an otherwise imprecise timeline. 

[Venturi Swirl]

That's the point.... "around 10pm" from both groups could be some time apart and they could still both be correct.

The only way Gerry could be Smithman is if the alarm was raised a lot earlier than 10pm or if The Smiths saw the man a long time after 10pm, IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

It's an unusually precise time in an otherwise imprecise timeline.

Of course we don’t know if Gerry actually said that, or whether it was a misunderstanding, a mishearing, a misspeak, a typo, etc.

[G-Unit]

Of course we don’t know if Gerry actually said that, or whether it was a misunderstanding, a mishearing, a misspeak, a typo, etc.

If you're saying they got Gerry's words wrong you have to accept that maybe they got the Smith's words wrong too. You can't rely on anything being correct.

[Venturi Swirl]

If you're saying they got Gerry's words wrong you have to accept that maybe they got the Smith's words wrong too. You can't rely on anything being correct.

Which words of the Smiths are contentious or problematic?  But yes, you may well be right, in any case witness statements ARE unreliable because human memory is unreliable.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

It say's there his wife agreed.

The fact she didn't want to make a statement means nothing.

Maybe she had some ironing to do, or perhaps she just didn't want to be tainted any further by the acrid stench of the McCann affair.

And at least 2 witnesses report the alarm being raised before 10pm.

You’re wrong

His wife categorically REFUSED to make a statement

She probably knows he’s either an attention-seeker or has a strange disposition

She certainly couldn’t have thought the man was like Gerry McCann, otherwise she’d have made a statement, not just to back her husband up, but out of moral duty. Would YOU refuse to make a statement if you thought a certain man may have killed a child? Just because you had to iron some pillowcases?!

Anyway, In the event, the police wanted NOTHING from Mr Smith or his family as they knew Gerry McCann was sat in the Tapas Bar when the Irish family poured out the bar & spotted a man carrying his child.

They too probably also figured that Mr Smith was an attention-seeker.

And if Smith thought the man seemed strange, why didn’t he stop him?

I’ll tell you something that happened to me. One sunny Saturday afternoon many years ago I saw a man carrying a young child who looked asleep when I was driving home from the shops. There were a few people around, but because it was daytime and the girl was flat out asleep, I took NO chances. I pulled up and apologised after lowering my window down, and asked him who he was and who the girl was. It sounds rude, but I didn’t care: I couldn’t understand why she looked so floppy. He actually smiled and almost laughed, and said he was taking her home from a birthday party. He INVITED me to walk to his front door where his wife was waiting, and instead of them being annoyed, they THANKED me for my concern.

That’s enough about me because this forum is about Madeleine, but the point I’m making is that if Mr Smith thought the man was carrying the girl in a strange way, why the hell didn’t he APPROACH him?!

He’s clearly a dramatist who wanted publicity IMO

I’m not commenting on this anymore, as his case is CLOSED.

The police told him that 12 years ago. HE never pipes up about it — nor do the police (that file is closed)  so why are YOU going on about it?

It’s kaput.

[Brietta]

I'm not aware that the PJ discounted the Smith sighting as a factual event. I know whilst Amaral was leading the case he saw it as significant because he was making arrangements to bring the family back to Portugal. We also know that SY describe the Smith sighting as "the centre of our focus". So who are you going with the PJ (after Amaral) or SY?

Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_Report_English_Translation.pdf

[Wonderfulspam]

You’re wrong

His wife categorically REFUSED to make a statement

She probably knows he’s either an attention-seeker or has a strange disposition

She certainly couldn’t have thought the man was like Gerry McCann, otherwise she’d have made a statement, not just to back her husband up, but out of moral duty. Would YOU refuse to make a statement if you thought a certain man may have killed a child? Just because you had to iron some pillowcases?!

Anyway, In the event, the police wanted NOTHING from Mr Smith or his family as they knew Gerry McCann was sat in the Tapas Bar when the Irish family poured out the bar & spotted a man carrying his child.

They too probably also figured that Mr Smith was an attention-seeker.

And if Smith thought the man seemed strange, why didn’t he stop him?

I’ll tell you something that happened to me. One sunny Saturday afternoon many years ago I saw a man carrying a young child who looked asleep when I was driving home from the shops. There were a few people around, but because it was daytime and the girl was flat out asleep, I took NO chances. I pulled up and apologised after lowering my window down, and asked him who he was and who the girl was. It sounds rude, but I didn’t care: I couldn’t understand why she looked so floppy. He actually smiled and almost laughed, and said he was taking her home from a birthday party. He INVITED me to walk to his front door where his wife was waiting, and instead of them being annoyed, they THANKED me for my concern.

That’s enough about me because this forum is about Madeleine, but the point I’m making is that if Mr Smith thought the man was carrying the girl in a strange way, why the hell didn’t he APPROACH him?!

He’s clearly a dramatist who wanted publicity IMO

I’m not commenting on this anymore, as his case is CLOSED.

The police told him that 12 years ago. HE never pipes up about it — nor do the police (that file is closed)  so why are YOU going on about it?

It’s kaput.

Firstly, no, you are wrong. Smith thought it was Gerry & his wife agreed with him.

Secondly, for a man who is an attention seeking dramatist, as you allege, he does seem to keep rather a low profile where the case is concerned.

Thirdly, he thought it was just a father carrying their daughter (I think he was right), so he didn't find the sighting suspicious.

And in closing, STOP WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS.