The Smith sighting revisited.

[misty]

Martin & Peter downed a pint each in roughly 7 minutes....

What about 2 pints?
My o/h would testify that it's quite difficult to down a pint quickly when you've just finished a big meal.

[pathfinder73]

Exactly. The men thought they had been there a lot longer than the 20 minutes Aoife's statement suggests.  Remember, Aoife couldn't even remember which day she returned home so I would question the reliability of her memory.
Such a pity that CCTV got wiped.......the PJ could have seen the man who wasn't there.....case solved.

Are you kidding me? The evidence is in the files. Thursday 3 May. What day do you think it was? The credit card receipt at 9:27 proves Aoife was correct with her 9:30 time. Martin & Peter's 9pm was incorrect and would easily explain why they thought they had more than one drink.

[misty]

Are you kidding me? The evidence is in the files. Thursday 3 May. What day do you think it was? The credit card receipt at 9:27 proves Aoife was correct with her 9:30 time. Martin & Peter's 9pm was incorrect and would easily explain why they thought they had more than one drink.

If they can't remember how many drinks they had, then maybe Peter really did have a dream about the man who wasn't there.

[misty]

That's how desperate you are.

Nothing misty about you, you're completely transparent like the rest.

Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults  are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable.
The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt.
It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.

[Wonderfulspam]

Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults  are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable.
The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt.
It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.

No, it's definitely you.

Your 'Smithman doesn't exist' nonsense is some seriously desperate BS.

[misty]

No, it's definitely you.

Your 'Smithman doesn't exist' nonsense is some seriously desperate BS.

It it really? I challenge you to prove he does exist  (without pyjama changes).

[pathfinder73]

Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults  are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable.
The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt.
It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.

I provide evidence to back up my theories. You say all 9 were dreaming when they saw a man carrying a child. Your accusations are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.

[Alice Purjorick]

Pathfinder & you can't have it both ways. You argue that the male adults  are incorrect in their timings regarding leaving the restaurant, the time they left Kelly's bar & how many drinks they consumed. You argue that a family of 9 saw Smithman, yet dismiss 2 of the only 3 statements provided as unreliable.
The only true fact is the time on the restaurant receipt.
It's not me who is transparent, Spam, it's the people who want to see Smithman being identified as Gerry. That just isn't going to happen because it just didn't happen.

Right on! and about the only time in this whole business that can be verified independently with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
So do you believe the Smiths imagined seeing a man carrying a child? or that they did see a man carrying a child but it was after 22:05 ish or you believe they saw someone but you don't believe it was Gerry?
Or is there a nagging doubt it may have been Gerry ergo the Smiths must be trashed?

[Wonderfulspam]

I provide evidence to back up my theories. You say all 9 were dreaming when they saw a man carrying a child. Your accusations are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.

No PF, SY will wise up soon & realise they had all just imagined it.

[pathfinder73]

No PF, SY will wise up soon & realise they had all just imagined it.

That must be it. Getting rid of Tannerman and revealing to the public for the first time the Smithman efits on CW was a shot in the dark. SY detectives haven't got a clue 

[pegasus]

IIRC witness AS says the man had thick hair, short but slightly longer on top.
That hair description matches the broader faced of the two efits.

[Wonderfulspam]

That must be it. Getting rid of Tannerman and revealing to the public for the first time the Smithman efits on CW was a shot in the dark. SY detectives haven't got a clue 

 

[pathfinder73]

IIRC witness AS says the man had thick hair, short but slightly longer on top.
That hair description matches the broader faced of the two efits.

[misty]

I provide evidence to back up my theories. You say all 9 were dreaming when they saw a man carrying a child. Your accusations are unfounded and cannot be taken seriously.

No, you haven't. From a family of 9, you have 3 statements, all of which came as a result of one saying "was I dreaming or did we see.......". Of those 3, you have dismissed the timing content of 2 as inaccurate - in the same fashion as the Tapas 9 timeline is dismissed. The one you have fixated on was provided by a 12 year old who, after discussion with the rest of her family, provided a description which was strikingly similar clothing-wise to Tannerman & carrying a child dressed strikingly similar to Tannerman's child (blanket excluded as no-one knew about the blanket then).
The PJ flew this family back in secret to make their statement, then dismissed them as unimportant until the McCanns left the country. Why do you suppose that was?
Prove he existed. It wasn't Gerry if you use Aoife's times and 7 years later not one other person appears to have come forward & identified him. Strange that.

[pathfinder73]

No, you haven't. From a family of 9, you have 3 statements, all of which came as a result of one saying "was I dreaming or did we see.......". Of those 3, you have dismissed the timing content of 2 as inaccurate - in the same fashion as the Tapas 9 timeline is dismissed. The one you have fixated on was provided by a 12 year old who, after discussion with the rest of her family, provided a description which was strikingly similar clothing-wise to Tannerman & carrying a child dressed strikingly similar to Tannerman (blanket excluded as no-one knew about the blanket then).
The PJ flew this family back in secret to make their statement, then dismissed them as unimportant until the McCanns left the country. Why do you suppose that was?
Prove he existed. It wasn't Gerry if you use Aoife's times and 7 years later not one other person appears to have come forward & identified him. Strange that.

My theory is backed up by evidence in statements, time receipts etc. - in the files, long checks. When one witness says Kate left to check at 9:50 and another said it was exactly 10:03 then you know something ain't right! But when others reveal it's closer to 9:50 then the 10:03 anomaly needs to be looked at in closer detail. When that happens you get to the heart of the matter and what really happened that night. And why the timeline had to change