Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

I guess all we need now is a photo of Brueckner wearing buttoned trousers circa 2007. Then we can forget all this Gerry nonsense & focus back on the abduction. Is there any evidence Brueckner owned buttoned trousers? No there isn?t. Only Gerry I'm afraid.

[faithlilly]

I reckon Smithman must?ve been wearing these, BIG buttons, lots of ?em, that?s how Aiofe was able to spot them at the same time spotting that the man wasn?t Gerry McCann
https://lunelondon.co.uk/products/men-casual-cargo-pants-with-practical-button-details-and-comfortable-pockets-chic-and-style-gc3wmlpypw?currency=GBP&variant=50815074140448&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&stkn=ac81694da6ce&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23261658666&gbraid=0AAAABBEaMujQjDN3YPh1CHNQAPzUTem_0&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7cLOBhDmARIsAGsuA0mH8jzEotkxhUuRVlHCr0ljgZVQ44Hy0YGuY9a7MpcX2bG-CkayRrMaAn2UEALw_wcB

Did she say that it wasn?t Gerry or possibly that she didn?t know or remember? Martin Smith said, and I paraphrase, that the only family member that agreed with him, that the man they saw was Gerry, was his wife. It is possible that Aiofe and the rest of the party simply didn?t know or weren?t paying attention.

There really is no nuance with you.

[Joe Blogs]

I actually assumed you were a woman. Something to do with the writing style & exclamation marks. Not sure why exactly but I thought you were female.

No, I can assure you i'm a male, Spam!

[Wonderfulspam]

No, I can assure you i'm a male, Spam!

Well I'll just have to take your word for it as physically confirming as much would be unhygienic & I'm not that way inclined, ducky.

[Joe Blogs]

No, I can assure you i'm a male, Spam!

I was just thinking about a youtube video I watched, and wondered why the Tanner and Smith sightings both seemed to have the child in pyjamas ? The guy in the video said once it got dark in Prai da Luz at 8.30 it got very cold?
So why did both sightings seem to suggest a child in their PJs? Didn't the children have jumpers or jackets to put on at the creshe's before meeting the night air?
But worse that that, there doesn't seem to be any mention of footwear, or am I mistaken?
If the kids being carried weren't wearing footwear, why could that be?
Why would you leave a creche in your stocking soles?
To me, this points to Smithman either being Gerry or a genuine abductor rather than a citizen of Luz carrying their daughter home, wouldn't you say? Or did any of the Smiths mention footwear? If so, ignore this post!

[Wonderfulspam]

I was just thinking about a youtube video I watched, and wondered why the Tanner and Smith sightings both seemed to have the child in pyjamas ? The guy in the video said once it got dark in Prai da Luz at 8.30 it got very cold?
So why did both sightings seem to suggest a child in their PJs? Didn't the children have jumpers or jackets to put on at the creshe's before meeting the night air?
But worse that that, there doesn't seem to be any mention of footwear, or am I mistaken?
If the kids being carried weren't wearing footwear, why could that be?
Why would you leave a creche in your stocking soles?
To me, this points to Smithman either being Gerry or a genuine abductor rather than a citizen of Luz carrying their daughter home, wouldn't you say? Or did any of the Smiths mention footwear? If so, ignore this post!

I agree. Innocent local father man would be quite aware that it gets parky after darky so it's likely they would dress their Madeleine in something warmer than just pyjamas & with bare feet.

[Joe Blogs]

I agree. Innocent local father man would be quite aware that it gets parky after darky so it's likely they would dress their Madeleine in something warmer than just pyjamas & with bare feet.

Also, why would you change into pyjama's at a creche before being carried home anyway?
Wouldn't you change into you're PJs once you were home at your own house?
Even if Smithman had been a local man visiting someone for the evening it still doesn't make sense carrying his daughter home in her PJs with no footwear does it?
Far more plausible surely that Smithman was either Gerry/ Abductor!
The abductor would simply snatch Maddie from her bed and leave ASAP, hence wearing PJs with no footwear!
Gerry would also dump Maddie in PJs without footwear, obviously to mimic an abduction!
Yes, I think it is more probable that Smithman was either Gerry or an abductor, and not a local resident!
Although, the Tanner sighting seemed to suggest a child in similar bedtime attire too!
Maybe kids dont wear shoes in Portugal?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Did she say that it wasn?t Gerry or possibly that she didn?t know or remember? Martin Smith said, and I paraphrase, that the only family member that agreed with him, that the man they saw was Gerry, was his wife. It is possible that Aiofe and the rest of the party simply didn?t know or weren?t paying attention.

There really is no nuance with you.

Smith said that apart from his wife no one in his family agreed with him.  Aiofe was paying such close attention she could see the tiny beige buttons but not paying such close attention that she failed to spot that the man she saw turned out to be the famous father of the most famous missing child of all time.  Hope that?s nuanced enough for you.

exact quote from statement:

During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Also, why would you change into pyjama's at a creche before being carried home anyway?
Wouldn't you change into you're PJs once you were home at your own house?
Even if Smithman had been a local man visiting someone for the evening it still doesn't make sense carrying his daughter home in her PJs with no footwear does it?
Far more plausible surely that Smithman was either Gerry/ Abductor!
The abductor would simply snatch Maddie from her bed and leave ASAP, hence wearing PJs with no footwear!
Gerry would also dump Maddie in PJs without footwear, obviously to mimic an abduction!
Yes, I think it is more probable that Smithman was either Gerry or an abductor, and not a local resident!
Although, the Tanner sighting seemed to suggest a child in similar bedtime attire too!
Maybe kids dont wear shoes in Portugal?

Tannerman was Dr Totman, carrying his child home in PJ?s and no shoes. It?s equally plausible that Smitman was a dad doing likewise.  Kids put in the night creche are generally put to bed in their PJs and carried home to bed by their parents asleep to cause minimum disruption to their night.  Something tells me you don?t have children.

[faithlilly]

Smith said that apart from his wife no one in his family agreed with him.  Aiofe was paying such close attention she could see the tiny beige buttons but not paying such close attention that she failed to spot that the man she saw turned out to be the famous father of the most famous missing child of all time.  Hope that?s nuanced enough for you.

exact quote from statement:

During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.

In May Aiofe said this :

"At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it."


If Aiofie couldn't remember the man's face in May why do you think that she would be able to remember it months after when her father contacted the Irish police?

Daniel Smith, the other witness who gave a statement in May said this :

"He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.
? He also does not remember the clothing the individual wore or his shoes. He states that he did not notice those details as his pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her, not caring about observation of the individual."

He obviously didn't see the man's face as it was dark and he was concerned about his pregnant wife.

Two witnesses, neither who had a good recall of their sighting's face. Is it any wonder that they couldn't support their father?

[Wonderfulspam]

Tannerman was Dr Totman, carrying his child home in PJ?s and no shoes. It?s equally plausible that Smitman was a dad doing likewise. Kids put in the night creche are generally put to bed in their PJs and carried home to bed by their parents asleep to cause minimum disruption to their night.  Something tells me you don?t have children.

Innocent Gerrylike man with his coincidental button trousers, & a daughter resembling Madeleine. Happened to be in the area, struggling down the road uncomfortably carrying his deeply unconscious daughter, around the same time the McCanns are suspected to have faked an abduction because Madeleine was dead. Just the most unfortunate coincidence & nothing more. Nothing to see here. No, there's nothing in it.

[Wonderfulspam]

Bananas in pyjamas are coming down the stairs

[Joe Blogs]

Tannerman was Dr Totman, carrying his child home in PJ?s and no shoes. It?s equally plausible that Smitman was a dad doing likewise.  Kids put in the night creche are generally put to bed in their PJs and carried home to bed by their parents asleep to cause minimum disruption to their night.  Something tells me you don?t have children.

If only Smithman had come forward and been ruled out, Vertigo!

[Wonderfulspam]

If only Smithman had come forward and been ruled out, Vertigo!

Since there's only really one plausible explanation for the sighting, accounting for the details that is, Smithman will never be found, & the McCanns will never let go of Tannerman, even though he's been ruled out.

[Joe Blogs]

Since there's only really one plausible explanation for the sighting, accounting for the details that is, Smithman will never be found, & the McCanns will never let go of Tannerman, even though he's been ruled out.

Vertigo says it was common practice to take kids out of bed at the creche and carry them home in their PJs, Spam, so nothing unusual about the Tanner or Smithman sighting!