The evidence places Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at 10pm

[icabodcrane]

Someone not knowing whether something occured or not, ...

An unfounded and uncorroborated assumption: a much more highly probable assumption that, in fact, Gerry was there but no one remarked on his presence (no earthly reason why anyone should).

More, if he was absent, you'd expect detailed commentary from the file of attempts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.

There is no trace of any such commentary in the file ...

There is evidence (the testimonies of all Martin Smith's children) that the Smiths did not see Gerry ...

@ icabodcrane

Who, aside from you, used the word 'alibi'?

Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ?  ...  whether or not Gerry can definitively  be placed  'somewhere else'  at the moment Martin Smith says he is fairly sure he saw him carrying a child 

An alibi in other words

As far as I can tell,the only people to have done that are Gerry's friends

Independent witnesses saying they don't know whether he was there or not, do not provide him with an alibi

I should add,  that I don't think Mr Smith saw Gerry that night ...  but it still remains the case that no independent witnesses definitively prove it to be so

Well that is what we are talking about isn't it ?

No.  It's what you are talking about in a shameless attempt to derail the discussion.

The PJ concluded that at the time of the Smith sighting Gerry was at the table.  They were patently right to do so.

The PJ concluded Gerry was at the table on the strength of his friends' witness statements  ( as they had to )

The topic under discussion is whether or not 'independent' witnesses placed Gerry at the table at that time

They did not  ...  the Prosecutor, having  reviewed all statements,  came to the conclusion that independent witnesses, whilst not being able to confirm that he was there,  could  not  'deny' it either   (  in other words, they didn't know whether he was there or not )

[ferryman]

The PJ concluded Gerry was at the table on the strength of his friends' witness statements  ( as they had to )

I'll be kind and ignore the erroneous assertion that the McCanns' friends were anything other than independent.

All Martin Smith's children disagreed with their father that the man they saw was Gerry and there is the remarkable fact (if he wasn't there!) but the mundane, humdrum and expected fact (if he was) that not one person remarked on his absence.

And good point Martha.

ETA: Two other points would be interesting:

Does Mr Smith think now as he did then?

And why (aside from an administrative error that could easily be rectified) was Mr Smith never interviewed by rogatory?

[ferryman]

If the PJ weren't satisfied that Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant why didn't they question him as to his whereabouts at the time the alarm was raised?

Because it was after he returned to the UK that Mr Smith came forward.

Besides, Gerry Mccann already told police he was at the table at the time

Edited

That doesn't answer the question.

The PJ final report was written after Martin Smith's second statement to the Irish Gardia police.

[Lace]

Diane Webster said in her statement that Kate McCann came running to the table saying 'she's gone Gerry'.

The Smiths sighting was just after 10 o'clock,   so how would Gerry McCann be back at the Tapas Bar to be addressed by Kate when she give the alert that Madeleine was missing?

As I have said before,   if Gerry wasn't there, why would Diane Webster say that Kate addressed him with those words?   

If Gerry had asked Diane to give him an alibi,   then he would have to have filled all the Tapas friends in with what had happened to Madeleine got them all to agree with hiding her body,  when he had finished talking to Jez.

Then he would have had to go back to the apartment get Madeleine and make his way to the beach for the Smiths to see him.

Link to Dianne Webster's statement -  www.mccannfiles.com/id254.html‎

[icabodcrane]

--------- JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA  - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;


Anyknow who this second person is supposed to be?

The first sounds like O Brian  ( he said that his food had to be kept warm )

The second man to leave the table for half an hour between 9.30 and 10pm  ?  ...  no idea

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Redblossom
But I suppose even 6 non independent witnesses

6?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Redblossom
But I suppose even 6 non independent witnesses

6?

Jane Tanner  was at home at the time

accepted and excluding Gerry himself - that takes it down to 7?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

Redblossom
But I suppose even 6 non independent witnesses

6?

Jane Tanner  was at home at the time

accepted and excluding Gerry himself - that takes it down to 7?

What?

nevermind - I just wondered where you got 6 from.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

doesn't it start at 9 and count down from there?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

OK

what time did Carpenter leave?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

OK

what time did Carpenter leave?

9.15-9.30

so?

I believe they were sat at adjacent tables - close enough to talk and wondered if the waiter had got mixed up with Carpenter leaving.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

OK

what time did Carpenter leave?

9.15-9.30

so?

I believe they were sat at adjacent tables - close enough to talk and wondered if the waiter had got mixed up with Carpenter leaving.

Oh but Carpenter didnt comeback did he

so many men moving about I meant.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

OK

what time did Carpenter leave?

9.15-9.30

so?

I believe they were sat at adjacent tables - close enough to talk and wondered if the waiter had got mixed up with Carpenter leaving.

Oh but Carpenter didnt comeback did he

so many men moving about I meant.

So Steve Carpenter was moving around alot? Leaving? Dont think so, he had his kid with him

I think you are confusing what I am saying.

I am just saying that there was at least one other man, sat close in the restaurant, that got up and left in the period.

That's ignoring whoever got up for a pee etc.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

BUT HE NEVER CAME BACK, the waiter said the person who left around 9.30 came back just before alarm was raised

but who was it then and was it the same person that got up and left and the same person who came back - or was it just a confusion of men?

Are waiters really so observant or bothered to watch and time so carefully?

[amaraltheofficeboy]

BUT HE NEVER CAME BACK, the waiter said the person who left around 9.30 came back just before alarm was raised

but who was it then and was it the same person that got up and left and the same person who came back - or was it just a confusion of men?

Are waiters really so observant or bothered to watch and time so carefully?

Its  your prerogative to make what you want out of witness statements, and yes waiters are generally very very observant  its part of their job to watch tables

At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

it's good you have confirmed that then - because these very observant waiters would have said - hold on - that's bollocks - he wasn't there.