Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

Now now, Spam! I am not taking any side at the moment, I haven't read the statements yet!

You don't need to read all the statemens or be up to speed on every detail of the case. You just need to ask yourself the question, is it really likely that an innocent man or abductor could resemble Gerry & have similar trousers to his? If the answer is not likely then the simplest answer is that it was Gerry. There's no escaping this conclusion for me. This is why I'm sick & tired of the case. It's like a black comedy.

[Joe Blogs]

You don't need to read all the statemens or be up to speed on every detail of the case. You just need to ask yourself the question, is it really likely that an innocent man or abductor could resemble Gerry & have similar trousers to his? If the answer is not likely then the simplest answer is that it was Gerry. There's no escaping this conclusion for me. This is why I'm sick & tired of the case. It's like a black comedy.

I'll take another look at the Smithman E-fits!

[Wonderfulspam]

I'll take another look at the Smithman E-fits!

I have faith in you Joe. You seem rational so I think you'll come to rule out the fatherlike, same trousers abductor scenario eventually & then you'll be a bit closer to the truth of the lie.

[Joe Blogs]

One of the Smithman E-fits looks like Kier Starmer, the other one, not sure who it reminds me of!
Do they resemble Gerry McCann? Certainly not as well as the Ghislaine Maxwell one anyway!

[Wonderfulspam]

One of the Smithman E-fits looks like Kier Starmer, the other one, not sure who it reminds me of!
Do they resemble Gerry McCann? Certainly not as well as the Ghislaine Maxwell one anyway!

The one in my profile picture is a close match imo. But there's no need getting convinced or otherwise by the e-fits. The incredulity of the fatherlike abductor with matching trousers should be enough on it's own to bring anyone to the right conclusion really. Or you can take it in conjunction with other facts I suppose, if you must.

1) We only have the McCanns word that Madeleine was abducted. There's nothing to confirm their assertion.

2) Gerry is the last person to claim to have seen Maddie.

3) There's a sighting of Gerry carrying an inert child, closely matching Madeleine?s description.

4) He was wearing buttoned leg trousers. Mr McCann was photographed wearing trousers with the same design.

5) The McCanns were advised by experts to release the Smithman e-fits ASAP. But they chose not to.

6) Neither parent bothered to call the police until Gerry finally arrives at reception some 40odd minutes after the abduction.

7) Gerry was overheard blaming paedophile gangs for Madeleine's abduction, but he never bothered telling the police that & there's no evidence that gangs of child abducting predatory paedophiles were operating in the area at that particular time.

The case is a lot less complicated than some peope make it when you consider the above mentioned.

[Wonderfulspam]

Wait no. We have to be balanced here. Let's also have a list of all the evidence, indicators that Madeleine was abducted.

1) The McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted.

2) Lots of sightings of Maddie from Brazil to Bahrain.

3) Wolters says Brueckner did it.

I think that about sums it up really.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So it's Innocent father who resembles Gerry & had the same trousers as him, with his Innocent Maddie like daughter. Or it's the abductor with trousers & face the same. It does sound rather far fetched if you really think about it doesn't it. I mean, what are the chances that the abductor would look & dress like Madeleine?s Father? No it sounds like nonsense so it can't be true. The simplest explanation is more likely, that it was Gerry. Hence, Bury the e-fits, lawyer up & put all the focus on the Tanner sighting.

Spam, the simplest explanation is that Smith was heavily influenced by intense media coverage at the time that were churning out false stories about the McCanns and only decided after they were made arguidos that it could (note: could) have been Gerry.  That was 4 whole months after the event.  None of his family agreed with him (apart from his wife allegedly though for some bizarre reason she declined to put her thoughts on the record).  Can you accurately remember the appearance of someone you fleetingly passed in a darkened street three weeks ago?  Because that?s how long it took the Smiths to give their initial statements.   
In order for him to be correct you would need to discount virtually every other witness statement of those who were there that night (including those of the friends you say weren?t in on it) and believe that Gerry thought the very best solution for hiding the body was to raise the alarm, then retrieve a body from some mysterious locale where it was first hidden and carry it bold as brass through town.
It?s absolute nonsense and you know it.  Even the PJ realised this was a non-starter.  Did they demand the McCanns return to Portugal following Smith?s revelation?  Why not?  Why did they in fact shelve the case and remove the McCanns arguido status a few months later instead?

[Vertigo Swirl]

One of the Smithman E-fits looks like Kier Starmer, the other one, not sure who it reminds me of!
Do they resemble Gerry McCann? Certainly not as well as the Ghislaine Maxwell one anyway!

I think one of the efits looks like Piers Morgan, maybe he?s in on it too.

[Wonderfulspam]

Spam, the simplest explanation is that Smith was heavily influenced by intense media coverage at the time that were churning out false stories about the McCanns and only decided after they were made arguidos that it could (note: could) have been Gerry.  That was 4 whole months after the event.  None of his family agreed with him (apart from his wife allegedly though for some bizarre reason she declined to put her thoughts on the record).  Can you accurately remember the appearance of someone you fleetingly passed in a darkened street three weeks ago?  Because that?s how long it took the Smiths to give their initial statements.   
In order for him to be correct you would need to discount virtually every other witness statement of those who were there that night (including those of the friends you say weren?t in on it) and believe that Gerry thought the very best solution for hiding the body was to raise the alarm, then retrieve a body from some mysterious locale where it was first hidden and carry it bold as brass through town.
It?s absolute nonsense and you know it.  Even the PJ realised this was a non-starter.  Did they demand the McCanns return to Portugal following Smith?s revelation?  Why not?  Why did they in fact shelve the case and remove the McCanns arguido status a few months later instead?

No it isn't. The simplest explanation is that it was Gerry. I'm not going to allow innocent dad or abductor guy who resembled Gerry & had buttoned trousers like him. It's too much of a coincidence & just plain ridiculous. You believe that nonsense if you want to. I'm sticking with the more likely & less stupid explanation thanks.

[Lace]

Strange, if that was her first thought, that she didn't bother to call the police & tell them. I mean, personally I think that's the first thing I'd do. And if the difference in language was a problem I'd be straight down to reception myself to demand they call them for me & I'd make sure that they stay on the line until the police arrive & explain the serious nature of the emergency. I'd be giving them all my details, all my child's details & when the police arrive I'd be explaining everything to them. But no, not Kate. After causing a scene at the Tapas she just turns hysterical, punching & banging her fists on walls. Poor Kate she just lost all control & doing the above mentioned was simply beyond her. How sad.

The Police would probably have said have you searched around outside for her?   They had to make sure that she hadn't wandered.  Even though in your heart you know she hadn't.  They knew their child Madeleine seemed a sensible child to me I don't think she would have ventured out in the dark without shoes.   Actually after searching one of the friends went to call the Police and the reception were reluctant.  Don't know if they did straight away.

[Lace]

They did ring the GNR found this -

With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet. He added (the receptionist) that he had phoned the GNR post several times and that he had been told that they would arrive when they could but that they were investigating a theft in Odiaxere. The receptionist asked the witness whether he should contact the PSP, to which the witness replied no as this area belongs to the GNR.

[Lace]

Strangely that theft was a hoax.  I don't know if they investigated who rang about a theft but it is very strange.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No it isn't. The simplest explanation is that it was Gerry. I'm not going to allow innocent dad or abductor guy who resembled Gerry & had buttoned trousers like him. It's too much of a coincidence & just plain ridiculous. You believe that nonsense if you want to. I'm sticking with the more likely & less stupid explanation thanks.

You're sticking your fingers in your ears and going blah blah blah.  You will not listen to reason.  You have put all your belief in one (very belatedly given) witness statement that no one, not even the police thought was Gerry, even the witness himself wasn't sure but bizarrely you are 100% certain.  Can't you see how stupid that is?

[Vertigo Swirl]

No. You misunderstood. He moves her twice. First on his extra long piss break at 9pm he moves her out of the apartment. The alarm gets raised maybe 9:55, which could easily be described as around 10pm. He moves her again during his search & that's when he's seen around 10:03- 05.

Given that the Smiths left Kelly's Bar at around 9.50pm (time verified by receipt) and saw Smithman  just up the street from the bar, do you have them standing around outside going nowhere for 10 minutes?  Because I don't recall that appearing in any of their statements.

[kizzy]

Why do you think the McCann's know what happened to Madeleine?

Is it because she said 'Someone has taken her' ?

Put yourself in Kates position.  She goes to the apartment the window is open Madeleine is not in her bed.  She quickly searches the room incase Madeleine is hiding from someone.  Madeleine is not in the apartment.  Now being a mother myself the first thing I would think about is that someone came into the bedroom through the window and abducted my child. Wouldn't you?

Why


Do we know the window was defiantly wide open.

If like you think -  it was ....why did she run out and leave it wide open with curtains blowing and twins inside.

Kmc searched for 10 mins....why if she knew Maddie had been abducted straight away.

Why would she think Maddie was hiding from someone...who.

I think you should put yourself in Maddies position -  if like you think she had been taken by a peodo.

I wouldn't even consider putting my self in kmc position.

Because kmc put herself in the position by leaving them vulnerable and alone in foreign country in the first place.