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

[DCI]

That was in the Summary Insider.

But the Final report say's different, Insider.

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/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

[insider]

I already posted that at the end of the previous page.  The summary was dated the month after the final report by the looks of it.

[icabodcrane]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

[ferryman]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

[icabodcrane]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

[ferryman]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

What?

Why would no one comment on Gerry's absence if he wasn't there?

[Lace]

EXACTLY!!   noone said 'where's Gerry?'

Diane Webster says in her statement that Kate McCann said 'she's gone Gerry'.

This must be the truth from Diane Webster,  OR,   Gerry managed to pop into the Tapas bar after he found Madeleine dead and after he was talking to Jez.   To tell the friends what had happened,  to get them to agree with him hiding Madeleine's body and for them to say he was at the Tapas Bar when Kate arrived to give the alert.

Which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous.

[debunker]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.

[AnneGuedes]

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

Sure.
Icabodcrane, have a look at the "concrete analysis" where this note comes from and try to find criteria for the listing of the "concrete facts".

[icabodcrane]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.

Someone not knowing whether something occured or not,  is evidence of nothing more than their inability to provide meaningful evidence

[debunker]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.

Someone not knowing whether something occured or not,  is evidence of nothing more than their inability to provide meaningful evidence

But it is evidence!

[icabodcrane]

In respect of Mr McCanns alibi it is worth reproducing an extract from the letter from the Republic's Prosecutor to the Attorney General dated  21st July 2008.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm


Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

That's interesting insider,  thanks for bringing it

So the Prosecutor,  having reviewed all evidence and witness statements, confirms that it was only the tapas group of friends who gave Gerry his alibi for the Smith sighting ... the only reference to  'independent'  witnesses is to say that restaurant employees hadn't  'denied'  it    ( in other words, they weren't sure whether he was there or not )

 

What's more interesting (and more relevant) is a negative: not one person remarked on the absence of the man who is Madeleine's father, a remarkable fact if, in fact, he was absent; mundane, humdrum routine, unworthy of comment if he was present in the restaurant.

It really is that simple ...

Alibis don't work like that

The independent witnesses who do not know whether he was there or not, do not provide an alibi

It may not provide an alibi, but it is evidence.

Someone not knowing whether something occured or not,  is evidence of nothing more than their inability to provide meaningful evidence

But it is evidence!

Who said it wasn't ? 

The discussion you joined was one of whether  independent witnesses  who didn't know whether Gerry was at the table,  when the Smiths made their sighting, provided  him with an  'alibi', or not

[ferryman]

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'?

[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

[ferryman]

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.