Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

And Martin Smith said three weeks after the event ?it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph? and so I ask you the same question you ask regarding Aiofe (who let?s not forget she was so close to the man she could observe the tiny beige buttons on his trousers -lol) ?if Martin Smith couldn't remember the man's face in May why do you think that he would be able to remember it months after??. 

You of course have to apply the double standard though don?t you?  Aiofe could not be expected to remember the face but Martin Smith?s memory actually sharpened over the months because that?s what usually happens isn?t it?  58 year old men?s memory of past events does improve over the months to the point that, whereas three weeks after they can?t recognise that they passed the famous dad of the most famous missing child on the street, suddenly they recognise him 4 months later, yes that?s entirely to be expected.

 If a witness in the Luke Mitchell case came forward with a similar case of ?improving memory syndrome? I wonder what you?d have to say about that.  There?s a word for these double standards you exhibit, I?m sure you know the word I?m referring to.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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

Yes, but by leaving it so long he probably would have felt too guilty for not having done so earlier and wouldnt want the worldwide media scrutiny.   People are strange.  Look at the Smiths - they all thought it may have been Madeleine on the 4th May and if they had gone to the police then she may have been saved.  Their 3 week delay is to my mind inexplicable and unforgivable.

But here?s another explanation for you, that some McCann sceptics actually believe - Smithman was a decoy set up by the McCanns.  They sent a pretend abductor with a Madeleine lookalike through the streets to lend credence to the abduction theory, meanwhile Madeleine had died days before.  Oh, and Robert Murat was in on it. And there are a bunch of gullible old morons who actually believe this but they had to come up with this nonsense because even these gullible old morons worked out that Smithman could not have been Gerry as human beings can?t be in two places at once. 

[Wonderfulspam]

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!

Ok Joe so look at the details. What do we know about the Smith sighting of the innocent Man?

1) He could be mistaken for Gerry

2) He happened to have trousers like Gerry had

3) He was uncomfortably carrying a child

4) The child was dead to the world

5) She closely matched Madeleine?s description

All this was going on around the time Madeleine was suspected to be dead & the McCanns were staging an abduction.

So, with all that said, does it really seem logical & plausible to you that this was a number of unfortunate coincidence & that this was just another innocent Man?

[Wonderfulspam]

He signalled that he did not wish to speak. His accent might have given him away.

Innocent unsociable Gerrylike coincidental button trousers man, uncomfortably carrying his stiff Maddie through the darkened back streets, never to be seen again. Meanwhile, Gerry was at the Tapas bar, so he was & he had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in Madeleine?s disappearance.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If only the PJ hadn?t also been so incompetent we could have had this one sorted.  They took a statement from Aoife at the end of May in which she mentions buttons (she doesn?t however mention what colour or configuration, and isn?t actually convinced there were buttons only that maybe there were buttons).  Then no more than 3 weeks later Gerry is interviewed wearing a pair of trousers with buttons.  Given that Amaral was suspicious of thr McCanns from Day One, what is stopping him getting a photo of those trousers sent to Aoife with one simple question - are these the trousers you saw?  But no, that would be too much like hard work I expect.  Funny how the buttons aren?t an integral part of his amazing thesis nonetheless, considering how vitally important they are as evidence.

[Wonderfulspam]

If only the PJ hadn?t also been so incompetent we could have had this one sorted.  They took a statement from Aoife at the end of May in which she mentions buttons (she doesn?t however mention what colour or configuration, and isn?t actually convinced there were buttons only that maybe there were buttons).  Then no more than 3 weeks later Gerry is interviewed wearing a pair of trousers with buttons.  Given that Amaral was suspicious of thr McCanns from Day One, what is stopping him getting a photo of those trousers sent to Aoife with one simple question - are these the trousers you saw?  But no, that would be too much like hard work I expect.  Funny how the buttons aren?t an integral part of his amazing thesis nonetheless, considering how vitally important they are as evidence.

You say we could have had this one sorted. Are you conceding that the Gerrylike button trousers man could in fact have simply been Gerry? Of course not. Gerry was at the Tapas afterall wasn't he.

[Vertigo Swirl]

^^looks like the penny has finally dropped.  Yes, Gerry was at the Tapas table when Smithman was spotted.  Glad we?ve finally reached the point where we don?t have to discuss this any more.  Happy Easter!

[Wonderfulspam]

^^looks like the penny has finally dropped.  Yes, Gerry was at the Tapas table when Smithman was spotted.  Glad we?ve finally reached the point where we don?t have to discuss this any more.  Happy Easter!

Exactly. You simply cannot counter it. However you try & explain the Smith sighting the idea that it was an abductor or innocent man, it simply doesn't pass the test of logic & plausibility. It's easily open to ridicule. So there you go. On the balance of probability there was no abduction & Gerry was seen by the Smiths. And a happy Easter to you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Damn, and there was me thinking the WUM had finally hung up his wumming trousers (the ones with buttons on the side) and come to his senses.  I thought perhaps Easter miracles really do exist?.

Ha, no I didn?t really- I may be a gullible old moron, but not THAT gullible!  It seems the inexorable argument continues, with neither side conceding one millimeter of ground.  I guess that means we will still be talking about buttons and sleeves and Gerry?s superhuman ability to be in two places at once for many more years to come.  Hallelujah.  Thanks be for Smithman, for without him what would we have to talk about? 

[Wonderfulspam]

Damn, and there was me thinking the WUM had finally hung up his wumming trousers (the ones with buttons on the side) and come to his senses.  I thought perhaps Easter miracles really do exist?.

Ha, no I didn?t really- I may be a gullible old moron, but not THAT gullible!  It seems the inexorable argument continues, with neither side conceding one millimeter of ground.  I guess that means we will still be talking about buttons and sleeves and Gerry?s superhuman ability to be in two places at once for many more years to come.  Hallelujah.  Thanks be for Smithman, for without him what would we have to talk about?

I would say I'm suprised no one seems to be able to work this out for themselves but there are a lot of gullible morons about & I can't expect too much from them.

What time was the alarm raised, exactly, VS? Can you give me the exact time that Kate came screaming?

No you can't. Only 'around 10pm'. The guests at the tapas didn't all stare at their watches & make a note of the exact time that Kate came screaming.

So, around 10pm could mean anything from 10mins to or 10 mins past really. If you bother to read Matt's rogatory you'd see that he puts the time slightly before 10pm & only said he believed it was 10pm because Rachel said so. Did she stare at her watch? Probably not. The guests all came up with an estimate.

So, if the alarm is raised slightly before 10pm. By 5 mins or so, then that's plenty of time for Gerry to do a bit of rubbish acting, then they all split up & search, then Mr Coincidental trousers gets seen carrying a stiff Maddie, in the wrong pyjamas, past the Smiths. The End.

It's really not that difficult.

Can we hear your theory now & make all the jigsaw pieces of Brueckner fit where the sighting of Gerry goes?

[Wonderfulspam]

Honestly. I find it totally retarded when people poop out the mantra 'Gerry can't be in two places at once'. That no one seems to be able to work it out is just beneath me. The answer to the case is staring people in the Gerrylike trousers pyjamas face & yet no one seems to be able to solve the equation for themselves. You simply cannot have a Gerrylike trousers pyjama change abductor or an innocent Gerrylike trousers father with Maddie clone daughter. It's beyond plausibility & so it can only mean it was Gerry really. If you really think about.

[kizzy]

If only the PJ hadn?t also been so incompetent we could have had this one sorted.  They took a statement from Aoife at the end of May in which she mentions buttons (she doesn?t however mention what colour or configuration, and isn?t actually convinced there were buttons only that maybe there were buttons).  Then no more than 3 weeks later Gerry is interviewed wearing a pair of trousers with buttons.  Given that Amaral was suspicious of thr McCanns from Day One, what is stopping him getting a photo of those trousers sent to Aoife with one simple question - are these the trousers you saw?  But no, that would be too much like hard work I expect.  Funny how the buttons aren?t an integral part of his amazing thesis nonetheless, considering how vitally important they are as evidence.

But the moral of that story is...Aoife mentioned buttons..[seems rare trousers so why would she think she saw buttons].

Gmc owns a pair of the rare trousers with buttons.

M. Smith named gmc as being the man carrying the child who looked like Maddie.

Walking away from the Ocean club. at approximately - the very time Maddie was reported missing

[Eleanor]

Honestly. I find it totally retarded when people poop out the mantra 'Gerry can't be in two places at once'. That no one seems to be able to work it out is just beneath me. The answer to the case is staring people in the Gerrylike trousers pyjamas face & yet no one seems to be able to solve the equation for themselves. You simply cannot have a Gerrylike trousers pyjama change abductor or an innocent Gerrylike trousers father with Maddie clone daughter. It's beyond plausibility & so it can only mean it was Gerry really. If you really think about.

Apart from you no one else seems to have solved this. Can you explain why that is, please.

[Joe Blogs]

Gee whizz, I dont know what to make of Smithman!
What did the Portuguese police conclude about the sighting?
What does the general public think?
Are there many youtube videos that take an indepth look at Smithman? Dont think i've come across any!

[Wonderfulspam]

Apart from you no one else seems to have solved this. Can you explain why that is, please.

This case attracts gullible people who blindly believe that Madeleine was abducted. Why? Because the McCanns said so, & Redwood said so & Wolters said so. I mean, look at what happened with Brueckner. The women folk here were wetting their knickers with excitement when Wolters claimed he had solved the case. We had McCann supporters saying they believed the three expert expert investigative forces were well on their way to proving abduction. Sceptics tried telling you all that Wolters had nothing. Nothing but an alleged secondhand confession but no. Even today there are people who believe Brueckner might still be charged. I can assure you, he won't. Because of the Gerrylike trousers pyjamas abductor conundrum.