The Amaral theory of what happened to Madeleine.

[Lace]

Change his clothes ?

The waiter says all nine were sat at the table when he took their orders.

Then when the alert was raised by Kate he says all had finished their meals, where there had once been nine people at the table,  only one remained.

Dianne Webster said in her statement that Kate McCann said 'She's gone Gerry'.

Gerry was there Faithfully.   It couldn't have been Gerry the Smith's saw.

[John]

Only one guest had his meal held back and that was Russell who was sitting with his daughter in their apartment. 

Anyone who believes for a second that a waiter would not have noticed a missing guest who hadn't eaten his meal is sadly deluded.

[Benice]

Change his clothes ?

As far as I know Gerry didn't go to dinner dressed in gold coloured trousers and a black long-sleeved jacket, looking more like a local than a tourist.   So for him to be the man the Smiths saw - he would have had to get changed first -and then changed back again when he returned before the alarm was raised.     All that takes time, and he is not Superman.

Don't you agree that if he had been wearing the same clothing as described by the Smiths, that once the description was made public someone who saw Gerry that night would have remembered.   i.e.  Jez Wilkins? the waiters and/or other people he spoke to at the Restaurant? 

The whole idea that Gerry is the man the Smiths saw is just wishful thinking IMO.   

 

[John]

Martin Smith must feel a right plank for even thinking it.

[faithlilly]

As far as I know Gerry didn't go to dinner dressed in gold coloured trousers and a black long-sleeved jacket, looking more like a local than a tourist.   So for him to be the man the Smiths saw - he would have had to get changed first -and then changed back again when he returned before the alarm was raised.     All that takes time, and he is not Superman.

Don't you agree that if he had been wearing the same clothing as described by the Smiths, that once the description was made public someone who saw Gerry that night would have remembered.   i.e.  Jez Wilkins? the waiters and/or other people he spoke to at the Restaurant? 

The whole idea that Gerry is the man the Smiths saw is just wishful thinking IMO.   

Was the description made 'public' as such ? Unless you are really interested in the case I doubt you'd have much more knowledge of the Smith sighting than what appeared in the newspapers.  Besides it is certainly true that Gerry had a pair of trousers, buttons included, with him in PDL that matched the Smith's description.

[Mrs. B]

As far as I know Gerry didn't go to dinner dressed in gold coloured trousers and a black long-sleeved jacket, looking more like a local than a tourist.   So for him to be the man the Smiths saw - he would have had to get changed first -and then changed back again when he returned before the alarm was raised.     All that takes time, and he is not Superman.

Don't you agree that if he had been wearing the same clothing as described by the Smiths, that once the description was made public someone who saw Gerry that night would have remembered.   i.e.  Jez Wilkins? the waiters and/or other people he spoke to at the Restaurant? 

The whole idea that Gerry is the man the Smiths saw is just wishful thinking IMO.   

It simply doesn't work time wise, so unless Gerry had a time machine somewhere, he was NOT the person the Smiths' saw. Perhaps they can start speculating about that instead, where was the time machine hidden?

[Benice]

Was the description made 'public' as such ? Unless you are really interested in the case I doubt you'd have much more knowledge of the Smith sighting than what appeared in the newspapers.  Besides it is certainly true that Gerry had a pair of trousers, buttons included, with him in PDL that matched the Smith's description.

Anyone who had been at PdL and at that complex and especially anyone who had spoken to the McCanns would be following every inch of the case - so of course they would know about the description.   

You would think if Gerry's trousers were of any significance - the police would have removed them.  They knew about the gold coloured trousers and black longsleeved jacket from Jane Tanner.  If Gerry had been wearing clothing that matched that description when they arrived  they would have remembered -  they are policeman FGS.

Give it up Faith.  It wasn't Gerry who Martin Smith saw, and I'd bet my last penny that if you asked him that same question now - he would say he got it wrong.   After all he never did say it was Gerry who was familiar, it was only the position that Gerry was carrying his son in - which brought back a memory- and out of the 3 Smith witnesses who gave statements, the other two didn't agree with him. 



 

[AnneGuedes]

Give it up Faith.  It wasn't Gerry who Martin Smith saw
The trouble with believers is this systematic lack of distinction between believing and knowing. For believers doubt doesn't simply exist, it has no room nowhere.
The sceptics never say "it was Mr McCann whom Mr Smith met" or "the skin colour observed by Mr Smith mean the child was dead" or "they didn't call the police on time". They wonder, they don't hammer their views as if they were the reality the others refuse to face.

[faithlilly]

Anyone who had been at PdL and at that complex and especially anyone who had spoken to the McCanns would be following every inch of the case - so of course they would know about the description.   

You would think if Gerry's trousers were of any significance - the police would have removed them.  They knew about the gold coloured trousers and black longsleeved jacket from Jane Tanner.  If Gerry had been wearing clothing that matched that description when they arrived  they would have remembered -  they are policeman FGS.

Give it up Faith.  It wasn't Gerry who Martin Smith saw, and I'd bet my last penny that if you asked him that same question now - he would say he got it wrong.   After all he never did say it was Gerry who was familiar, it was only the position that Gerry was carrying his son in - which brought back a memory- and out of the 3 Smith witnesses who gave statements, the other two didn't agree with him. 



 

I seem to remember there was something beige on the McCanns bed in the photographs in the files. Could they have been the trousers ?  Also how easy would it have been to remove a jacket before the police arrived ?

As to the police not removing the trousers, didn't they bungle the investigation according to you ? Couldn't that have been just another bungle ?

[Mrs. B]

Oh good, so Gerry didn't even bother to get rid of the incriminating trousers even afterwards, he left them on the bed for the police to take pictures of. How very thoughtful of him.

[AnneGuedes]

I seem to remember there was something beige on the McCanns bed in the photographs in the files.

Yes, there is but it doesn't look like pants. Anyhow I don't see why Mr McCann would have changed pants, since I don't think he digged. We only know that he had no kilt on!

[Benice]

I seem to remember there was something beige on the McCanns bed in the photographs in the files. Could they have been the trousers ?  Also how easy would it have been to remove a jacket before the police arrived ?

As to the police not removing the trousers, didn't they bungle the investigation according to you ? Couldn't that have been just another bungle ?

It was Amaral who referred to 'bungling' -  because the photographer didn't take piccies of the clothes they were wearing.    However that does indicate that he was aware that clothing could be relevant - and so I presume he asked questions about what people were wearing that night - and presumably was satisfied with the answers.

[DCI]

I seem to remember there was something beige on the McCanns bed in the photographs in the files. Could they have been the trousers ?  Also how easy would it have been to remove a jacket before the police arrived ?

As to the police not removing the trousers, didn't they bungle the investigation according to you ? Couldn't that have been just another bungle ?

Yes, what look like pyjama trousers. Also they have stripes on, if you zoom in!

[Matthew Wyse]

This is most certainly what is being referred to, a part in GA's documentary, see second paragraph, first one included for context

10.38 – It is just after 22 p.m. when Kate goes to her children’s bedroom using the shorter route, entering the apartment through the sliding window, and sees Madeleine is missing. She asserts that the bedroom’s window and shutters had been opened. She drops everything, leaves the twins, who continue sleeping, in a room with an open window, and heads for the Tapas bar, to raise the alarm.

11.04 – This is where part of Kate McCann’s behaviour on that night becomes incomprehensible. Instead of stopping right here, (he is standing at the balcony in the documentary when he is narrating this)and shouting out to the people who were at the restaurant, where her husband was, what she does is climb down these stairs, and walk a distance that is certainly twice as much as the distance from here to the restaurant, which is located approximately 50 metres from here, as the crow flies.

Oh I see and thanks for that RedB.   So Amaral calls the 'as the crow flies' route of 50mts directly across the pool the 'short route'.  Yet another corruption in the translation process. 


What Amaral is really saying is why did Kate not shout from the balcony instead of having to run the 70mts to the tapas bar?

My response to that would be that she wouldn't have been heard since the tapas group of seven were in full conversation with probably background music being played and all this within the confines of an enclosed area.

[faithlilly]

Yes, there is but it doesn't look like pants. Anyhow I don't see why Mr McCann would have changed pants, since I don't think he digged. We only know that he had no kilt on!

You may be right Anne but perhaps he changed them precisely because he knew he'd been seen by the Smiths