Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

Martin Smith
1) didn?t report the sighting until over 3 weeks after Madeleine went missing despite knowing the day AFTER the sighting that a young girl had gone missing and thinking that the child they saw could be her.
2) stated in his initial statement that he would not be able to recognise the man he saw either in person or by phoograph, yet 4 months after admitting this, at the height of public suspicion towards the McCanns (thanks to the PJ and the media) and based purely on the way the child was being carried he decides that it may have been Gerry McCann.  Note: may have been him, not WAS him.
3) was not backed up by any of his accompnying family members in believing the man was Gerry McCann apart from his wife who was never interviewed so we only have his say so that she agreed with him.

And I?m supposed to be the gullible one, because based on the flimsy nature of the above and the practical impossibility of Gerry being in two places at once I don?t think Smith?s testimony has much credibility??
I mean even many self proclaimed leading McCann bashers have given up on that idea long since too, so why are there people on here more convinced that Smith saw Gerry than even he is himself?

[Joe Blogs]

Martin Smith
1) didn?t report the sighting until over 3 weeks after Madeleine went missing despite knowing the day AFTER the sighting that a young girl had gone missing and thinking that the child they saw could be her.
2) stated in his initial statement that he would not be able to recognise the man he saw either in person or by phoograph, yet 4 months after admitting this, at the height of public suspicion towards the McCanns (thanks to the PJ and the media) and based purely on the way the child was being carried he decides that it may have been Gerry McCann.  Note: may have been him, not WAS him.
3) was not backed up by any of his accompnying family members in believing the man was Gerry McCann apart from his wife who was never interviewed so we only have his say so that she agreed with him.

And I?m supposed to be the gullible one, because based on the flimsy nature of the above and the practical impossibility of Gerry being in two places at once I don?t think Smith?s testimony has much credibility??
I mean even many self proclaimed leading McCann bashers have given up on that idea long since too, so why are there people on here more convinced that Smith saw Gerry than even he is himself?

Sorry to butt in, Vertigo! But how does the Smith man sighting tie into the time that Maddie officially went missing? I suppose I mean, if the man and child that Smith saw was Breuckner, how much of a head start did he have to get away after the alarm was raised?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sorry to butt in, Vertigo! But how does the Smith man sighting tie into the time that Maddie officially went missing? I suppose I mean, if the man and child that Smith saw was Breuckner, how much of a head start did he have to get away after the alarm was raised?

IMO the Smiths saw this man and chlld at about the same time Kate left the Tapas restaurant to go and check on the kids.  The reason I don?t think the man was Bruckner is that if he did abduct Madeleine he is far more likely to have his vehicle parked near the apartment to make a quick getaway, not parade his victim through the main streets of town.  Of course, if he?d planned to rob the apartment but then abducted Madeleine impulsively then it?s possible he hadn?t had the foresight to park closer and that would mean a longer walk, and we know CB is a risk taker, so not impossible that the man seen by the Smiths was CB.   However,  there were (I think, from memory) eleven girls sleeping in the holiday creche that night, all of whom would need to have been collected by a parent throughout the evening.  I think it?s possible that Smithman was one of those children having been collected, but this is pure conjecture.  .

[faithlilly]

Martin Smith
1) didn?t report the sighting until over 3 weeks after Madeleine went missing despite knowing the day AFTER the sighting that a young girl had gone missing and thinking that the child they saw could be her.
2) stated in his initial statement that he would not be able to recognise the man he saw either in person or by phoograph, yet 4 months after admitting this, at the height of public suspicion towards the McCanns (thanks to the PJ and the media) and based purely on the way the child was being carried he decides that it may have been Gerry McCann.  Note: may have been him, not WAS him.
3) was not backed up by any of his accompnying family members in believing the man was Gerry McCann apart from his wife who was never interviewed so we only have his say so that she agreed with him.

And I?m supposed to be the gullible one, because based on the flimsy nature of the above and the practical impossibility of Gerry being in two places at once I don?t think Smith?s testimony has much credibility??
I mean even many self proclaimed leading McCann bashers have given up on that idea long since too, so why are there people on here more convinced that Smith saw Gerry than even he is himself?

Why do you think that the parents decided to focus on the Tanner sighting to the exclusion of the Smith sighting? Even though OG ruled out the Tanner sighting many years ago it still has pride of place on the OFM website. Why do you think that is?

Reading the Smith?s witness statements it?s interesting to see that of the three witnesses none positively said that there was a pattern on the pyjamas the child wore. Further two of the witnesses couldn?t even tell the colour of the
child?s clothing. Yet we are supposed to believe that Tanner, at a greater distance to any of the Smiths, saw not only the colour of the clothing but the pattern on the clothing that the child that she saw was wearing.

[Joe Blogs]

IMO the Smiths saw this man and chlld at about the same time Kate left the Tapas restaurant to go and check on the kids.  The reason I don?t think the man was Bruckner is that if he did abduct Madeleine he is far more likely to have his vehicle parked near the apartment to make a quick getaway, not parade his victim through the main streets of town.  Of course, if he?d planned to rob the apartment but then abducted Madeleine impulsively then it?s possible he hadn?t had the foresight to park closer and that would mean a longer walk, and we know CB is a risk taker, so not impossible that the man seen by the Smiths was CB.   However,  there were (I think, from memory) eleven girls sleeping in the holiday creche that night, all of whom would need to have been collected by a parent throughout the evening.  I think it?s possible that Smithman was one of those children having been collected, but this is pure conjecture.  .

So are we saying that Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant when the Smith sighting occurred then, Vertigo?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why do you think that the parents decided to focus on the Tanner sighting to the exclusion of the Smith sighting? Even though OG ruled out the Tanner sighting many years ago it still has pride of place on the OFM website. Why do you think that is?

Reading the Smith?s witness statements it?s interesting to see that of the three witnesses none positively said that there was a pattern on the pyjamas the child wore. Further two of the witnesses couldn?t even tell the colour of the
child?s clothing. Yet we are supposed to believe that Tanner, at a greater distance to any of the Smiths, saw not only the colour of the clothing but the pattern on the clothing that the child that she saw was wearing.

As I am not the parents I can?t answer for them.  As I wasn?t there to observe the distances and lighting levels again I am unable to answer.  However thanks to Dr Totman we know that Jane Tanner did see a man and child who she reasonably accurately described because he confirmed that he and his little girl were dressed as she had stated.  What you are now doing is picking holes and making insinuations without addressing the elephant in the room which is that Gerry could not be in two places at once.  Furthermore you have not acknowledged the fact that Smith?s statement is far from credible given the time lapse between the sighting and the two statements months apart and the fact that most of his family did not agree with him. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

So are we saying that Gerry was at the Tapas restaurant when the Smith sighting occurred then, Vertigo?

Yes.

[Eleanor]

I have always thought that the man seen carrying the child was heading for the beach.  And a boat did go missing from The Marina that night.

[Joe Blogs]

I have always thought that the man seen carrying the child was heading for the beach.  And a boat did go missing from The Marina that night.

Can you expand a little there, Eleonar? Do you mean the Smith sighting had an innocent explanation unrelated to Maddie?

[faithlilly]

As I am not the parents I can?t answer for them.  As I wasn?t there to observe the distances and lighting levels again I am unable to answer.  However thanks to Dr Totman we know that Jane Tanner did see a man and child who she reasonably accurately described because he confirmed that he and his little girl were dressed as she had stated.  What you are now doing is picking holes and making insinuations without addressing the elephant in the room which is that Gerry could not be in two places at once.  Furthermore you have not acknowledged the fact that Smith?s statement is far from credible given the time lapse between the sighting and the two statements months apart and the fact that most of his family did not agree with him.

You know what VS I have spent so much of my time discussing this case with you and it has got us precisely nowhere. You will never agree with me and I will never agree with you so shall we just avoid replying to each other?. I?m sure in RL you?re a lovely person but here you simply come across as a little brittle. I really don?t have the energy anymore. Take this as a victory as I didn?t answer any of your question?.you're welcome!

[Eleanor]

Can you expand a little there, Eleonar? Do you mean the Smith sighting had an innocent explanation unrelated to Maddie?

Again it gets a trifle complicated. The theory was that someone stole a child for a Brazilian couple who wanted to adopt and were asking around.  This couple were living in Luz and happened to be working on a sea going yacht which actually did go missing that night along with the couple.  And the man carrying the child was heading in the direction of the beach.

Portuguese is the national language of Brazil which supposedly would have made negotiations easier.  It all sounded very possible to me.

[Joe Blogs]

Again it gets a trifle complicated. The theory was that someone stole a child for a Brazilian couple who wanted to adopt and were asking around.  This couple were living in Luz and happened to be working on a sea going yacht which actually did go missing that night along with the couple.  And the man carrying the child was heading in the direction of the beach.

Portuguese is the national language of Brazil which supposedly would have made negotiations easier.  It all sounded very possible to me.

Wow! Never heard of that theory before! Thanks Eleanor.

[Eleanor]

Wow! Never heard of that theory before! Thanks Eleanor.

This is why I haven't given up hope.  Brazil is a big country so Madeleine could be anywhere.  And even knows what stories she could have been told, if indeed she wondered who she was.

[faithlilly]

This is why I haven't given up hope.  Brazil is a big country so Madeleine could be anywhere.  And even knows what stories she could have been told, if indeed she wondered who she was.

I admire that you still have hope Eleanor. While others were willing to believe Madeleine dead as long as it wasn?t the parents you refused to succumb.

There?s a certain nobility in remaining steadfast in your beliefs.

[Joe Blogs]

You know what VS I have spent so much of my time discussing this case with you and it has got us precisely nowhere. You will never agree with me and I will never agree with you so shall we just avoid replying to each other?. I?m sure in RL you?re a lovely person but here you simply come across as a little brittle. I really don?t have the energy anymore. Take this as a victory as I didn?t answer any of your question?.you're welcome!

Have you heard about the big development coming in the Luke Mitchell case, Faith?
The CT are calling it a game changer! Not sure when it will be revealed.