Was Madeleine McCann run over by accident and then carried off?

[pathfinder73]

There's a thread in the Members Only Section.

[Alfred R Jones]

Let's consider this: Faithlilly firmly believes Gerry McCann to be a liar, right?  She doubts pretty much everything he says, figures he's lying to cover his arse, correct?  However the ONLY time she believes he is telling the truth is when he estimates the time Kate raises the alarm at around 10.13pm (he being the only person putting it that late) and in so doing cancelling out his own alibi for the Smith sighting.  This is the insane absence of logic we are dealing here with this particular "sceptic".

[stephen25000]

Let's consider this: Faithlilly firmly believes Gerry McCann to be a liar, right?  She doubts pretty much everything he says, figures he's lying to cover his arse, correct?  However the ONLY time she believes he is telling the truth is when he estimates the time Kate raises the alarm at around 10.13pm (he being the only person putting it that late) and in so doing cancelling out his own alibi for the Smith sighting.  This is the insane absence of logic we are dealing here with this particular "sceptic".

Unfortunately, the mccanns have been caught lying and have admitted to telling them as well.

That says everything.

[jassi]

Let's consider this: Faithlilly firmly believes Gerry McCann to be a liar, right?  She doubts pretty much everything he says, figures he's lying to cover his arse, correct?  However the ONLY time she believes he is telling the truth is when he estimates the time Kate raises the alarm at around 10.13pm (he being the only person putting it that late) and in so doing cancelling out his own alibi for the Smith sighting.  This is the insane absence of logic we are dealing here with this particular "sceptic".

If the time was 10.13, would he not have been sitting at the table with his friends? There is his alibi - how can he possibly be Smithman, when he was at the table ?

On the other hand, if the alert  time was earlier  and he is out & about by 10.00 his alibi is weaker.

[Alfred R Jones]

If the time was 10.13, would he not have been sitting at the table with his friends? There is his alibi - how can he possibly be Smithman, when he was at the table ?

On the other hand, if the alert  time was earlier  and he is out & about by 10.00 his alibi is weaker.

You'd be better off addressing that question to Faithlilly - presumably she believes Gerry paraded his daughter's corpse through town to find a spot where he hoped it would soon be discovered BEFORE returning to the table and moments later getting Kate to raise the alarm, but don't take my word for it - Flilly gets a bit shirty when I try and explain her theory.

[jassi]

It seems to me that the whole hinges on timings and everyone is delightfully vague about exactly what happened, when.

[Brietta]

You'd be better off addressing that question to Faithlilly - presumably she believes Gerry paraded his daughter's corpse through town to find a spot where he hoped it would soon be discovered BEFORE returning to the table and moments later getting Kate to raise the alarm, but don't take my word for it - Flilly gets a bit shirty when I try and explain her theory.

Raises the question of why did they go to all that bother ... why 'drop themselves in it' immediately Madeleine was found to be missing ... why not just wait till the morning, giving themselves far more time to 'stage' a scene?

It defies logic that strangers to a holiday resort would have been able to conceal a child's body so well that volunteer searchers, professionals and search and rescue dogs or scavengers were unable to find it.
When someone comes up with a plausible scenario of how they achieved that ... I'll lend an ear to whatever else they may have to say.

[jassi]

I put it all down to luck that the perpetrator got away unseen - or perhaps he didn't.

[Benice]

Martin Smith's 'altered ' decision ? Not the claim put forward in the now discredited Times article for which the McCanns were paid a hefty sum in damages ? You can't be talking about that claim as it was unsupported by any direct quote from Martin Smith.

As to giving Gerry a false alibi I think that by being rather vague as to who was at the table at certain times and obviously claiming correctly that Gerry was with them at the time of the alert, their friends left themselves just enough wriggle room if the questioning got really heavy.

The Times article  stated that Martin Smith had changed his mind and no longer believed the man he saw was Gerry,   That's a massive lie to publish if it was untrue - in fact the complete opposite of the truth.   

In the past Martin Smith has always been swift to take action against newspapers who got it wrong  - but there was no retraction and no apology issued regarding this truly momentous claim about him.     IMO common sense dictates that can only be because he had made no complaint about it - because it was accurate.

[Alfred R Jones]

msg202937 date=1417254976]
Raises the question of why did they go to all that bother ... why 'drop themselves in it' immediately Madeleine was found to be missing ... why not just wait till the morning, giving themselves far more time to 'stage' a scene?

[/b]It defies logic that strangers to a holiday resort would have been able to conceal a child's body so well that volunteer searchers, professionals and search and rescue dogs or scavengers were unable to find it.
When someone comes up with a plausible scenario of how they achieved that ... I'll lend an ear to whatever else they may have to say.

Because if they'd staged an abduction for during the night they would not have had an alibi, see?  That's why they had to adopt the insanely risky strategy of moving a corpse around 2 or 3 times that night (including parading it through town in open view for all to see) immediately before or just after raising the alarm, because of course that's far less likely to lead to them being caught than if they'd allowed themselves plenty of time to do the dastardly deed hours before raising the alarm.  And the fact that no one (except the police, but we'll gloss over that bit) seems to believe their actual alibi anyway means that they went to all that trouble for nowt!  *&*%£

[pathfinder73]

You'd be better off addressing that question to Faithlilly - presumably she believes Gerry paraded his daughter's corpse through town to find a spot where he hoped it would soon be discovered BEFORE returning to the table and moments later getting Kate to raise the alarm, but don't take my word for it - Flilly gets a bit shirty when I try and explain her theory.

If Gerry was seen it was after the alarm had been raised not when they were sat at the table. Gerry left to check at around 9pm and the timeline said 9:15. That's 15 minutes later and incorrect (first move). So if that is BS then another time could be and is i.e. the time Kate raised the alarm! Gerry trying to get the perfect alibi has backfired spectacularly!

[ferryman]

Martin Smith's 'altered ' decision ? Not the claim put forward in the now discredited Times article for which the McCanns were paid a hefty sum in damages ? You can't be talking about that claim as it was unsupported by any direct quote from Martin Smith.

As to giving Gerry a false alibi I think that by being rather vague as to who was at the table at certain times and obviously claiming correctly that Gerry was with them at the time of the alert, their friends left themselves just enough wriggle room if the questioning got really heavy.

Claims in articles?

The (very clear) indication that Martin Smith changed his mind is that he produced an e-fit.  He would not, of a man he considered to be Gerry McCann, because Gerry McCann does not need identification.

And if you (now) accept that Gerry was at the table when Kate alerted, then Kate's alert was at just about the same time as the Smith sighting, very obviously ruling out Gerry as the man the Smith's saw.

[slartibartfast]

The Times article  stated that Martin Smith had changed his mind and no longer believed the man he saw was Gerry,   That's a massive lie to publish if it was untrue - in fact the complete opposite of the truth.   

In the past Martin Smith has always been swift to take action against newspapers who got it wrong  - but there was no retraction and no apology issued regarding this truly momentous claim about him.     IMO common sense dictates that can only be because he had made no complaint about it - because it was accurate.

Can you provide a cite for bit of the Times article?

[Benice]

If Gerry was seen it was after the alarm had been raised not when they were sat at the table. Gerry left to check at around 9pm and the timeline said 9:15. That's 15 minutes later and incorrect (explains first move). So if that is BS then another time could be and is i.e. the time Kate raised the alarm! Gerry trying to get the perfect alibi has backfired spectacularly!

So who was eating Gerry's dinner whilst he was away?   9 meals ordered, 9 meals served. 

Would any normal person even feel like eating at a time like that?

And why would Diane Webster confirm that Gerry was at the table when Kate raised the alarm?   She hardly knew him and had no children to be responsible for.   And would Fiona Payne really allow her elderly mother to perjure herself to the police in a foreign country?    Not a chance IMO.

[lordpookles]

Are we now taking as fact what was said in a times article given they have just been successfully sued for the efit suppression claim? That is interesting in itself as I searched in vain for the reason the efits were not in the public domain. Gerry even wrote a piece for the guardian which did not go into that particular detail but rather focused on the conduct of the press. If he had a legitimate reason I was surprised he did not take that opportunity to let us know why rather then leaving a vacuum for further speculation...