The timeline revisited

[Vertigo Swirl]

No, but it does mean that someone's recollections can't be used as facts, which is the point I was making.

And yet you could think of no reason to doubt the recollection of the member of Tapas staff who claimed the party had vacated the table at 9.25 pm

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Obviously the wind wasn't blowing.

Here it is in Oldfield's own words:

"   they're similar curtains to the ones you've got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren't sort of blowing about, because I'm sure I'd have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me, which his why I said that I thought perhaps the moon was out, erm, but there as no sort of, you know, it's a questions of whether, there was no sort of slats of light coming through the back that particularly caught my eye. So I didn't specifically see the shutters and I couldn't say that they were definitely open, but certainly the curtains were shut and everything was quiet'..........................................................  the room was lighter than I expected but I definitely didn't see the shutters up, the curtains were definitely not disturbed and the shutters would have had to have been completely up, I presume, not to get that sort of, because they were shutters that went solid but when you lifted them they had gaps of light, and I wasn't aware of that and it may well be that the light was just the source from behind'."

[Brietta]

So do you think Clarence Mitchell was also agonising over incriminating an innocent person so he held back on the Smithman sighting?

I didn't post a word - I posted only a link.  So you have absolutely no excuse for paraphrasing or putting words into my mouth in a technique which amounts to fabrication.  I suggest it would be advisable you desist from this dishonest practice and stop trying to disrupt this forum with your antics.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Almost definite is not definitely.   He wouldn't have been able to tell with the curtains closed.

So why would the abductor close the curtains then open them again before Kate's check?

Also why did Gerry change his checking method the one time all week? Furthermore it takes him six days to remember the different checking method for that one night only (i.e. he changes his testimony on the 10th). I completely accept that small discrepancies with timings are not going to be too important - but I don't find it plausible that you can forget how you last came in and out of an apartment. There must be an explanation for this, and of course it could well be entirely innocent.

[G-Unit]

And yet you could think of no reason to doubt the recollection of the member of Tapas staff who claimed the party had vacated the table at 9.25 pm

Who was that then?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I didn't post a word - I posted only a link.  So you have absolutely no excuse for paraphrasing or putting words into my mouth in a technique which amounts to fabrication.  I suggest it would be advisable you desist from this dishonest practice and stop trying to disrupt this forum with your antics.

With all due respect I asked you an honest question.... I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm genuinely asking you why do you think Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long.... even more so if it clearly wasn't Gerry. It is an honest question. It has baffled me for years!!

[Brietta]

With all due respect I asked you an honest question.... I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm genuinely asking you why do you think Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long.... even more so if it clearly wasn't Gerry. It is an honest question. It has baffled me for years!!

Your question was answered by my post reminding the forum of Mr McCluskey's addition to his original statement which was made before before Mr Smith amended his using almost identical wording.

In my opinion your posts are quite often at odds with the standards expected on the forum, and putting words into my mouth when I have said literally nothing which could possibly be misconstrued is but one example.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Your question was answered by my post reminding the forum of Mr McCluskey's addition to his original statement which was made before before Mr Smith amended his using almost identical wording.

In my opinion your posts are quite often at odds with the standards expected on the forum, and putting words into my mouth when I have said literally nothing which could possibly be misconstrued is but one example.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean there. I do not understand the point you are trying to make but I'm certainly not putting words into your mouth nor attempting to disrupt the flow of the forum.

I don't see how either statement either before or after they were amended has any impact on Clarence Mitchell using his influence to call for public information into a potential "sighting".

It's not about what you have posted or linked to.... I'm asking a question regarding the fact there was a sighting of a man carrying a child on the evening in question.

[Eleanor]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean there. I do not understand the point you are trying to make but I'm certainly not putting words into your mouth nor attempting to disrupt the flow of the forum.

I don't see how either statement either before or after they were amended has any impact on Clarence Mitchell using his influence to call for public information into a potential "sighting".

It's not about what you have posted or linked to.... I'm asking a question regarding the fact there was a sighting of a man carrying a child on the evening in question.

More gobbldy gook.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

More gobbldy gook.

Really? I was just wondering why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Ignored as in he didn't use his influence to appeal to the public for information with regards to the Smithman sighting.

[Eleanor]

Really? I was just wondering why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Ignored as in he didn't use his influence to appeal to the public for information with regards to the Smithman sighting.

Why should he?

[Brietta]

Really? I was just wondering why Clarence Mitchell ignored the Smithman sighting for so long. Ignored as in he didn't use his influence to appeal to the public for information with regards to the Smithman sighting.

Why did no-one publicise Mr McClusky's sighting. 

His original statement was made at the time and I believe he had all sorts of problems getting the police to hear it.

Mr Smith's original statement was not made until a fortnight after the event.

Why did the police ignore one amended statement and why did they think the other almost identically amended one was a game changer according to Amaral.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Why should he?

In an attempt to find Madeleine.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Why did no-one publicise Mr McClusky's sighting. 

His original statement was made at the time and I believe he had all sorts of problems getting the police to hear it.

Mr Smith's original statement was not made until a fortnight after the event.

Why did the police ignore one amended statement and why did they think the other almost identically amended one was a game changer according to Amaral.

Since the van registration was recorded and given to the Police you must assume this was followed up and investigated. The outcome of that investigation does not seem to be public (happy for someone to provide further information  though). But yes, is this another one missed by Clarence Mitchell for no apparent reason? Mitchell claimed at the LSE event that he was getting "inside information" so perhaps he knew the McCluskey sighting was investigated and ruled out? Perhaps there's another explanation?

[Brietta]

Since the van registration was recorded and given to the Police you must assume this was followed up and investigated. The outcome of that investigation does not seem to be public (happy for someone to provide further information  though). But yes, is this another one missed by Clarence Mitchell for no apparent reason? Mitchell claimed at the LSE event that he was getting "inside information" so perhaps he knew the McCluskey sighting was investigated and ruled out? Perhaps there's another explanation?

Don't you think that it is possible that the sightings both of which referred to exactly the same reasons for amending the original statements have been investigated and ruled out.

Only sceptic fora mention Mr Smith's amendment these days it seems.  What do you think the police are currently doing about it not forgetting the Portuguese police ruled out both a very long time ago.