Why did Gerry's sister expect Kate to be charged with accidental death?

[pegasus]

... someone else who has been the victim of a mysterious burglary

[icabodcrane]

... someone else who has been the victim of a mysterious burglary

What are you refering to pegasus   ?

[pathfinder73]

It is not surprising that some expected this witness to be charged in Sept 2007.
The indications claimed against witness included for example:
1. Prints indicating opening window and shutter but claiming found already open.
2. Signalled clothes having had contact with scent source.
3. A driver of signalled vehicle.
4. Carried signalled toy.
In fact IMO this is the most unjustly accused person ever and the disproofs of the above are
1. A photo of a GNR print on patio door was mistakenly used as a print of witness on bedroom window.
2. Those clothes were not being worn and were in a different location to witness.
3. There were several drivers.
4. Toy was not signalled IMO, it was a correct k9 signal but incorrectly localised to toy by handler IMO.
All IMO

Where does Smithman fit in to your theory? Do you think he was involved?

[pegasus]

What are you refering to pegasus   ?

GG was once the victim of burglars who stole a desk of no particular value, it was not far from PDL.

[pegasus]

Where does Smithman fit in to your theory? Do you think he was involved?

I'm not sure yet whether the sighting of man and child by the Irish family is crucially relevant, or totally irrelevant.
The time fits, if the sighting is (as indicated by restaurant and cafe tills) slightly later than estimated. And no innocent parent and child has come forward for walking this location. But unconcealed carrying is highly unlikely if one considers statistics of other cases.
Whether or not Smithman is relevant, IMO the allegations against KM were logically flawed and totally incorrect and I would have exercised right of silence at that 2nd interview if it was me, as it looked like they were about to charge her, on the basis of a most remarkable set of mistakes in logic.
All IMO.

[pathfinder73]

Thanks. It makes things clear when Smithman was spotted at a later time just as I thought to match with the first searches - he was never spotted as early as 9.50pm. That is the guy Pegasus with Madeleine! If you find any phone calls to JG then I'm interested - that guy has been involved from the start from getting the church keys to storing the hire car in his garage. I can't believe he wasn't fully investigated and all his properties searched with the dogs.

[pegasus]

Thanks. It makes things clear when Smithman was spotted at a later time just as I thought to match with the first searches - he was never spotted as early as 9.50pm. That is the guy Pegasus with Madeleine! If you find any phone calls to JG then I'm interested - that guy has been involved from the start from getting the church keys to storing the hire car in his garage. I can't believe he wasn't fully investigated and all his properties searched with the dogs.

Even if Smithman is relevant, the witness group state it was a man, therefore there is no way that could possibly incriminate a female person, and no way the Smith sighting should have contributed in any way to a female person being nearly charged. All IMO.

[jassi]

Even if Smithman is relevant, the witness group state it was a man, therefore there is no way that could possibly incriminate a female person, and no way the Smith sighting should have contributed in any way to a female person being nearly charged. All IMO.

Would that depend upon whatever it was that she wasn't charged with? The charge might have been going to be something along the lines of 'concealing a death', or such like - nothing to do with disposal of a body.

[pathfinder73]

Even if Smithman is relevant, the witness group state it was a man, therefore there is no way that could possibly incriminate a female person, and no way the Smith sighting should have contributed in any way to a female person being nearly charged. All IMO.

They could connect Smithman to the female person very easily and therefore both being involved in her disappearance. They have open window finger prints, cadaver clothes, contradictions in statements etc.

[pegasus]

The Smiths sighting of a male logically cannot be evidence towards suspecting and charging a female.

[jassi]

The Smiths sighting of a male logically cannot be evidence towards suspecting and charging a female.

Has anybody said that it does? (genuine question, as I forget these things)

[Redblossom]

The Smiths sighting of a male logically cannot be evidence towards suspecting and charging a female.

There is no logic here Pegasus

[pegasus]

There is no logic here Pegasus

Indeed the deductions used to accuse and almost charge this witness lack common sense logic
Wrong print used re the window opening accusation.
And wrong assumption that clothes when contacted were being worn.
IMO

[pathfinder73]

Indeed the deductions used to accuse and almost charge this witness lack common sense logic
Wrong print used re the window opening accusation.
And wrong assumption that clothes when contacted were being worn.
IMO

There was no evidence of the window being forced or any glove prints so who opened it from the inside? An abductor who didn't use it? That's not believable. There's no evidence to support a door moving 3 times. Impossible so people are mistaken (being polite here). Clothes alerted being in direct contact with a dead body is common sense when you hear how loud Eddie barked at those pants. If any sudden panic calls were made which is doubtful it would've been 6.40-7pm IMO.

[a.baker]

KM took a shower around the time of DP's visit. She then claims she had a bath later that evening before going out. GM says she didn't as he believed she had showered earlier. A shower AND a bath? Is this odd or is it just me?