The Smiths Sighting

[gilet]

100% disagreement from rest of his family but NOT from his wife....why woukd he lie? If it goes to court we shall see wont we what Mary Smith says!

Don't you realise how daft that sounds. There is no evidential value in Martin Smith offering some hearsay that somebody else agreed with his speculation that the person was Gerry McCann. It may or may not be a lie but it sure as hell does not make his story any more believable.

[gilet]

You don't know what they think, they never said it. You interpret people and then claim your interpretation is a fact. Hence the rumour.

Had they thought it, don't you think they would have mentioned it?

They were there giving evidence. Do you seriously think they would have simply not bothered to mention something as crucial as that if they actually believed it?

[Redblossom]

Don't you realise how daft that sounds. There is no evidential value in Martin Smith offering some hearsay that somebody else agreed with his speculation that the person was Gerry McCann. It may or may not be a lie but it sure as hell does not make his story any more believable.

You posted ealier you werent accusing mr smith of lying when he said in his statenent his wife agreed with him, now youre saying maybe he did, hypocrite, smith sighting  problematic for you?Oh well, get your fluffy  slippers on and meditate on what you are spouting

[gilet]

You posted ealier you werent accusing mr smith of lying when he said inn his statenent gis wife agreed with him, now youre saying maybe he did, hypocrite, smith sighting  problematic for you?Oh well, get yiur fluffy  slippers on and meditate on what yiu are spouting

You really are grasping at non existent straws to try to pick holes in my posts.

I stated that I don't accuse Mr. Smith of lying. That remains 100% my stance.

I have no idea if he is lying or not therefore would not dream of accusing him of such.  Maybe the comment about what his wife said was true, maybe not. Whichever it would never be accepted as evidence by anyone who is even vaguely familiar with law.

Don't you see the ridiculousness?

Imagine the court scene.

Mr. Green gets up and tells the court, "It wasn't me M'Lud".

And he goes on to say "And I can prove it, M'Lud, cos my mate Billy says I didn't do it. So that's sorted then."

And the judge says, "Thank you for that Mr. Green. Clearly you can't have done it as Billy said so. Case dismissed".

[Redblossom]

You really are grasping at non existent straws to try to pick holes in my posts.

I stated that I don't accuse Mr. Smith of lying. That remains 100% my stance.

I have no idea if he is lying or not therefore would not dream of accusing him of such.  Maybe the comment about what his wife said was true, maybe not. Whichever it would never be accepted as evidence by anyone who is even vaguely familiar with law.

Don't you see the ridiculousness?

Imagine the court scene.

Mr. Green gets up and tells the court, "It wasn't me M'Lud".

And he goes on to say "And I can prove it, M'Lud, cos my mate Billy says I didn't do it. So that's sorted then."

And the judge says, "Thank you for that Mr. Green. Clearly you can't have done it as Billy said so. Case dismissed".

No need  to squirm, you did suggest mr martin may have made it up its all there in black and white, if any court case came about and you should pray it doesnt mrs martin would be called end of, now i shall take my leave of your and others nonsense

[Albertini]

More importantly a totally independent witness in the Tapas places Gerry McCann there at almost exactly the same time as the Smith sighting.

Hang on a minute.

For years when discussion has focused on the contradictions in the timelines of the McCann's and the group their online supporters have been telling us that it is perfectly normal for there to be issues and discrepancies in the times given by witnesses as everyone remembers things differently.

Indeed it's been a point much discussed on here and is the standard supporter defence for timeline issues.

Why is it that principal, held so dear for so long by so many, now to be tossed aside just because Gerry needs an alibi for the Smith sighting in light of Mr Smith's statement?

So what is it to be? Do we accept that times given will differ in which case the group's timings are excused BUT Gerry doesn't then have an alibi or for the Smith sighting OR do we accept that timings are right which may give Gerry an alibi but then calls into question the accounts of the family and their friends?

Pick either one but you can't have it both ways.

[Albertini]

The rest of the family (apart from his wife) did not agree with Mr. Smith     Not - they didn't agree 'a little bit'  - or they didn't agree 'quite a lot' - they simply didn't agree that the man they saw on the 3rd was Gerry McCann.    How can that be described as anything other than 100%  disagreement?

I don't go in for creating rumours.

Well I'm afraid you just have created a rumour. Mr Smith never mentions a number, he simply said:

It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.

So first off his wife agreed with him. However his family did not agree with his 60-80% likeness. That does not automatically mean they 100% said it wasn't Gerry. Mr Smith's statement gives room for other family members not to be sure it was Gerry and think it was Gerry maybe to 20,30,40 or 50%.

So we cannot say his family said they were 100% certain it was not Gerry. All we can say is that they did not agree with Smith's belief that this man was Gerry with 60-80% certainty if we wish to be entirely accurate.

Also now seems like as good a time as any to get this in from their statement:

Date of Diligence: 2007.05.26 10h45
Location: This Department
Name: Aoife Smith

The witness states:

His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.

[Albertini]

And for the avoidance of doubt the above posted image was dated 16th June 2007.

Taken from here:

http://www.exposay.com/parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-gerry-and-kate-mccann---june-16-2007/v/13832/

[icabodcrane]

More importantly a totally independent witness in the Tapas places Gerry McCann there at almost exactly the same time as the Smith sighting.

That is not true

No independent witness says they saw Gerry McCann in the Tapas bar when the Smiths made their sighting 

[Mr Gray]

I think it makes a mockery of a planned abduction. We have a suspiciously opened door at 9:05 which is then closed, it's open again at 9:30 when MO checks (although that seems to have been dropped from the official time line now) it's open at 10:00 when Kate returns and so is the window, at about the same time this new abductor is strolling down the road with his victim not ten minutes away.

Why all the time in the apartment?

Why no car?

Why the opened window?

Why hasn't this e-fit been made public before?

Wasn't made public before because they assumed the tanner sighting was the abductor..because of SY ruling out the tanner sighting...something the pj should have done 6 yrs ago...that the full significance of the sighting has become apparrent

[Albertini]

Wasn't made public before because they assumed the tanner sighting was the abductor..because of SY ruling out the tanner sighting...something the pj should have done 6 yrs ago...that the full significance of the sighting has become apparrent

So why did Redwood say she "may" have seen this man instead of saying she "did" see this man?

[icabodcrane]

Wasn't made public before because they assumed the tanner sighting was the abductor..because of SY ruling out the tanner sighting...something the pj should have done 6 yrs ago...that the full significance of the sighting has become apparrent

But the McCanns have continually insisted that the man the Smiths saw was the  SAME man Jane had seen 45 minutes earlier

When their private detectives showed them those photofits of the man the Smiths had seen  (  5 years ago  )  why did they still  insist he was the same man Jane had seen  ....  when he was clearly not   

[Mr Gray]

But the McCanns have continually insisted that the man the Smiths saw was the  SAME man Jane had seen 45 minutes earlier

When their private detectives showed them those photofits of the man the Smiths had seen  (  5 years ago  )  why did they still  insist he was the same man Jane had seen  ....  when he was clearly not

I haven't seen the mccanns insisting this

[Mr Gray]

So why did Redwood say she "may" have seen this man instead of saying she "did" see this man?

when did he say this and in what context

[icabodcrane]

I haven't seen the mccanns insisting this

Kate's book  (  page 328 )

The police did not appear to feel that Jane's sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primaria were related.  They seem to have concluded that thesewere in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children  ( if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all  ).  The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings.  They didn't dovetail perfectly.  To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing   

Kate wrote that   after  being shown the e fits the Smiths had given