Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?

[Carana]

I'm lost.

So what are some people on here trying to say?

That the Smith family concocted this story that they'd seen a man with a child? Whatever for?

[pegasus]

(snip) ... I am at a loss to understand why so many on here continue to defend such an evidently shaky story

I am hoping you will at least agree that this Irish group certainly did dine at the Dolphin restaurant that evening Blonk or do you think even that may be an amended memory?

[Eleanor]

I'm lost.

So what are some people on here trying to say?

That the Smith family concocted this story that they'd seen a man with a child? Whatever for?

Yep, I wondered about that.  But it's beginning to sound a bit Libellous to me.  So be sure that I will be watching.

[misty]

I am hoping you will at least agree that this Irish group certainly did dine at the Dolphin restaurant that evening Blonk or do you think even that may be an amended memory?

The credit card receipt was in the maiden name of Mrs S Smith so who knows..........

[misty]

Yep, I wondered about that.  But it's beginning to sound a bit Libellous to me.  So be sure that I will be watching.

Isn't the alleged collusion of the McCann timeline widely discussed on here without repercussions?

[pegasus]

It's remarkable the way a mediamanip peep, keen to discredit this irish witness, childishly twisted some actual words from a statement, to infer that the witness couldn't see because he wasn't wearing his glasses. That is what I call a PR fabrication.

But this focusses on an interesting thing. The man this group saw was wearing white or cream trousers, a black jacket, and was not wearing glasses that evening, however IMO it is quite possible he may usually wear glasses most of the time, and simply was not wearing them that evening and wearing contact lenses instead. This is more than speculation, it's based on examining an efit.

[Eleanor]

Isn't the alleged collusion of the McCann timeline widely discussed on here without repercussions?

I keep a close eye on that as well.

[misty]

I keep a close eye on that as well.

  

[pegasus]

The credit card receipt was in the maiden name of Mrs S Smith so who knows..........

So you must admit that at least she did dine at the Dolphin Misty.
And the reservation is in the name "Smith" and is for a total of 9 diners.
This confirms the veracity of these irish witnesses.
They certainly did see a man carrying a motionless girl with long fair hair, at the time a girl with long fair hair went missing.

[blonk]

I am hoping you will at least agree that this Irish group certainly did dine at the Dolphin restaurant that evening Blonk or do you think even that may be an amended memory?

I accept that 100% as IIRC there is sufficient proof of that from the receipt we find in the PJ files.

I do not however accept that there is anything like sufficient proof that all nine, or indeed any of them, then went for a 20-minute-or-so drink in Kelly's bar immediately after that dinner. 

But what you wrote in the post immediately above is a giant non sequitur.

You wrote, QUOTE:  "So you must admit that at least she did dine at the Dolphin Misty. And the reservation is in the name "Smith" and is for a total of 9 diners. This confirms the veracity of these Irish witnesses. They certainly did see a man carrying a motionless girl with long fair hair, at the time a girl with long fair hair went missing".

REPLY: The fact that they were proved to be entirely truthful about dining out at the Dolphin restaurant between 8pm and 9.30pm on 3rd May by no means proves that all of the rest of what they say is truthful.   

[misty]

It's remarkable the way a mediamanip peep, keen to discredit this irish witness, childishly twisted some actual words from a statement, to infer that the witness couldn't see because he wasn't wearing his glasses. That is what I call a PR fabrication.

But this focusses on an interesting thing. The man this group saw was wearing white or cream trousers, a black jacket, and was not wearing glasses that evening, however IMO it is quite possible he may usually wear glasses most of the time, and simply was not wearing them that evening and wearing contact lenses instead. This is more than speculation, it's based on examining an efit.

As a contact lens wearer myself, I'd be interested to know how that particular conclusion is reached.

[pathfinder73]

Isn't the alleged collusion of the McCann timeline widely discussed on here without repercussions?

My times are from their statements and compared to the first written timelines. Nothing made up! There are 10 minute discrepancies between them. 10 minutes could make someone be at the table or not. Very important in a case with sightings close by.   And there seemed to be a black jacket at the crime scene so it could be important. Anything could be at a crime scene. I didn't see the dogs sniffing any black jacket so maybe the abductor left it there

[pegasus]

I accept that 100% as IIRC there is sufficient proof of that from the receipt we find in the PJ files.

I do not however accept that there is anything like sufficient proof that all nine, or indeed any of them, then went for a 20-minute-or-so drink in Kelly's bar immediately after that dinner.

Good, we are agreed on one thing, that the irish group did dine at the Dolphin that evening.

Let's assume your theory is right, that they did not then go to Kelly's.
So they pay the bill at the Dolphin at about 9.28pm, then walk straight back to Estrela?
That would mean they saw the girl-carrying man in cream trousers and black jacket at about 9.30pm wouldn't it?

[misty]

My times are from their statements and compared to the first written timelines. Nothing made up! There are 10 minute discrepancies between them. 10 minutes could make someone be at the table or not. Very important in a case with sightings close by.   And there seemed to be a black jacket at the crime scene so it could be important. Anything could be at a crime scene. I didn't see the dogs sniffing any black jacket so maybe the abductor left it there

I wasn't specifically having a dig at your theory, P/F - merely pointing out that many seem to have a problem with a group of 9 (the Tapas group) writing their timeline down on the night of events yet don't want to question the statements of a family of 9 formulated after family discussion/consensus several days after the event.
And you know Smithman wasn't wearing gloves so that mobile must have been covered in cadaver odour!

[pathfinder73]

I wasn't specifically having a dig at your theory, P/F - merely pointing out that many seem to have a problem with a group of 9 (the Tapas group) writing their timeline down on the night of events yet don't want to question the statements of a family of 9 formulated after family discussion/consensus.
And you know Smithman wasn't wearing gloves so that mobile must have been covered in cadaver odour!

She was seen with long sleeves not short ones so covered up. His jacket would have been.