The Pedras Brancas building and Smithman's route.

[Brietta]

That 9.50pm on the whiteboard is rubbish.
Because no way did a group of 9 people including young kids manage to leave a restaurant (that alone can easily take 10 minutes), walk to a bar, get served several drinks, drink them, leave the bar (again easily 10 minutes just for that) and walk partway home, all in less than 23 minutes total, it's ridiculous.

I think the fly in the ointment may be the visit to the bar for which there is no tangible proof.

[pegasus]

I think the fly in the ointment may be the visit to the bar for which there is no tangible proof.

The fact that these witnesses did have drinks in Kelly bar simply puts the Smith sighting at about 10.10 - 10.15pm IMO. GM was definitely not wearing white trousers therefore cannot possibly be the man the Smith party saw. Identification by carrying style is rubbish (see Alvor statements).

[Brietta]

The fact that these witnesses did have drinks in Kelly bar simply puts the Smith sighting at about 10.10 - 10.15pm IMO. GM was definitely not wearing white trousers therefore cannot possibly be the man the Smith party saw. Identification by carrying style is rubbish (see Alvor statements).

Agreed that the man allegedly seen by the Smiths was not Madeleine's father.

There is no independent corroboration that the Smiths drank in Kelly's bar on the 3rd ... IMO the till roll tells us nothing apart from the fact drinks were bought and paid for ... it does not tell us by whom.

[pegasus]

Agreed that the man allegedly seen by the Smiths was not Madeleine's father.

There is no independent corroboration that the Smiths drank in Kelly's bar on the 3rd ... IMO the till roll tells us nothing apart from the fact drinks were bought and paid for ... it does not tell us by whom.

Its obvious the witnesses are not lying, they said they went in Kelly bar, therefore they did.
The only possible reason to argue they didn't would be to avoid having the Smith sighting after 10pm (for example at 10.10pm). But there is no need to avoid the Smith sighting being at 10.10pm. The white trousers already prove that the  airplane steps identification in Sept by MS is absolutely wrong, so no further alibi is needed, even if the sighting was significantly after 10pm, makes no difference, white is white, the id was incorrect

[Brietta]

Its obvious the witnesses are not lying, they said they went in Kelly bar, therefore they did.
The only possible reason to argue they didn't would be to avoid having the Smith sighting after 10pm (for example at 10.10pm). But there is no need to avoid the Smith sighting being at 10.10pm. The white trousers already prove that the  airplane steps identification in Sept by MS is absolutely wrong, so no further alibi is needed, even if the sighting was significantly after 10pm, makes no difference, white is white, the id was incorrect

I must take issue with your first sentence.

Making a statement unfortunately does not mean that statement is true.
People do lie. 
People do make mistakes.

The fact is, that apart from their statement, there is nothing to prove that the Smiths drank in Kelly's Bar on the 3rd May.

I have never needed to be convinced that the airplane steps identification was wrong.  Comparison with the McCluskey statement, which predated it, encouraged me to look with greater clarity at what the Smiths said.

[pegasus]

I must take issue with your first sentence.

Making a statement unfortunately does not mean that statement is true.
People do lie. 
People do make mistakes.

The fact is, that apart from their statement, there is nothing to prove that the Smiths drank in Kelly's Bar on the 3rd May.

I have never needed to be convinced that the airplane steps identification was wrong.  Comparison with the McCluskey statement, which predated it, encouraged me to look with greater clarity at what the Smiths said.

Ok so lets assume that the Irish group did not go to Kelly bar, and that after their meal they went at 9.30pm to the small beach for a quick paddle. There is no proof they didn't is there? So that would make the Smith sighting about 10.30pm ?

[Brietta]

Ok so lets assume that the Irish group did not go to Kelly bar, and that after their meal they went at 9.30pm to the small beach for a quick paddle. There is no proof they didn't is there? So that would make the Smith sighting about 10.30pm ?

They didn't claim that they had gone for a paddle.

Unfortunately CCTV from their hotel was scrubbed. 

If it hadn't been there would have been a record of when they returned to the hotel.  Which would have enabled a more accurate timeline of when they may have had their encounter.

[pathfinder73]

Smith sighting was 10:03 the alibi time. An exact time you won't forget!

[pegasus]

Smith sighting was 10:03 the alibi time. An exact time you won't forget!

But pathfinder IIRC you calculated your superexact time from a time stated by a source you do not trust.
IMO your proposed method is incorrect and your proposed time is at least an hour out.

[VIXTE]

SY can calculate it using their mobile phone data, something not available to us.

[misty]

SY can calculate it using their mobile phone data, something not available to us.

Which one of those currently being questioned resembles the description of Smithman?

[pathfinder73]

But pathfinder IIRC you calculated your superexact time from a time stated by a source you do not trust.
IMO your proposed method is incorrect and your proposed time is at least an hour out.

My theory connects. Aoife left Kelly's Bar at 10pm - she said she knew the time in her statement. This connects to 10:03 sighting time. Eddie's weaker flower bed scent alert connects to a body being in the flower bed for a short time i.e. somebody coming up the road. Smithman connects to going in the direction of the beach/rocks.

[faithlilly]

What I don't understand is why Brietta thinks the Smith family would lie about being in Kelly's bar.

We are told by the faithful that it is ludicrous to suppose all the McCann's friends lied about the night of the 3rd yet are asked to believe that the whole Smith family, who were in no way involved, did. Of course we are never told why they would do this but I suspect that over the hours and days ahead it will be insinuated, subtlety, by the usual suspects that the Smith family came forward, of course stressing through out how long it took them to come forward, merely to give Robert Murat an alibi.

[Brietta]

My theory connects. Aoife left Kelly's Bar at 10pm - she said she knew the time in her statement. This connects to 10:03 sighting time. Eddie's weaker flower bed scent alert connects to a body being in the flower bed for a short time i.e. somebody coming up the road. Smithman connects to going in the direction of the beach/rocks.

 ... and we place our faith in the timings of a child "not absolutely certain of the day" she left Portugal after her holiday.

[jassi]

What I don't understand is why Brietta thinks the Smith family would lie about being in Kelly's bar.

We are told by the faithful that it is ludicrous to suppose all the McCann's friends lied about the night of the 3rd yet are asked to believe that the whole Smith family, who were in no way involved, did. Of course we are never told why they would do this but I suspect that over the hours and days ahead it will be insinuated, subtlety, by the usual suspects that the Smith family came forward, of course stressing through out how long it took them to come forward, merely to give Robert Murat an alibi.

Yes, it is certainly intriguing as to why people try to rubbish the Smith sighting - its not as if they fingered Gerry or anyone else, is it. Now that Tannerman is accounted, Smithman becomes the only one to identify.