You're misleading people, Gilet, and all you demonstrate is pure bad faith : you suggest Mr Smith was alone thinking he had crossed Mr McCann, whilst he said his wife agreed with him. Can't you understand why she didn't want to state ? It's just a question of finesse.
Then you pretend a waiter saw Mr McCann at the Tapas table when his wife alerted, but you omit saying that the same waiter saw the same man, possibly Mr McCann, coming back after being away for half an hour (i.e having time to cross the Smith family), a fact that neither Mr McCann nor none of his acquaintances reported.
I repeat there is no mistake in the post I made. Your claim that there is, is simply wrong.
There was no other statement that supported Martin Smith's assertion that the man they saw was possibly Gerry McCann. That is plain and simple fact and no matter how you spin the issue of the hearsay from Smith about his wife that will remain the plain and simple truth.
As for his wife refusing to make a statement to the effect that she agrees with what her husband claims, no, I have no idea why a woman might refuse to do so. It is not finesse to refuse to make such a statement at all. What is your supposition as to the reason?
With regard to the witness in the Tapas restaurant the Smiths did not leave Kelly's bar till 21.55 and the sighting was at 22.00, precisely when the witness places Gerry McCann in the Tapas Restaurant. Unless he can be in two places at once (which is impossible) then I am absolutely correct and there is, as I pointed out, an independent witness who places him in the bar at the time of the sighting.
I am afraid that the mistakes are yours. The three points I made are absolutely correct and are backed up with specific evidence from the files and you have failed completely to demonstrate otherwise.
