Wandering Off Topic

[Wonderfulspam]

And let us not forget to all the 100% certain sightings of Madeleine over the years since her disappearance, which obviously proves she climbed out of the bin and went travelling after Gerry dumped her.

Yes, lets forget the most likely sighting. It being a whole family that witnessed this man, not far from the apartment, around the time Madeleine disappeared. SY didn't. That's why there was a whole Crimewatch episode. They didn't feature the sighting of Maddie in Timbuctoo though. Can't imagine why.

[Vertigo Swirl]

And let's not forget that the Met who featured a long sleeved child on Crimewatch (didn't show the all important buttons though) still haven't managed to put two and two together and that's because Spam still hasn't phoned them up to tell them where they've been going wrong all these years.  Why is he prevaricating?  Fame and riches are waiting to be heaped on him and all he has to do is stop trying to convince retarded old women on here and start trying to convince the morons at the Met.  Get on with it for god's sake!!!

[Wonderfulspam]

And let's not forget that the Met who featured a long sleeved child on Crimewatch (didn't show the all important buttons though) still haven't managed to put two and two together and that's because Spam still hasn't phoned them up to tell them where they've been going wrong all these years.  Why is he prevaricating?  Fame and riches are waiting to be heaped on him and all he has to do is stop trying to convince retarded old women on here and start trying to convince the morons at the Met.  Get on with it for god's sake!!!

I fully concede it isn't enough to prove anything at all in court. But when you test the evidence it is enough to prove on the balance of probability. This is self evident really. It's practically impossible to explain a feasible abduction thesis when accounting for all the details of the apartment status & the Smith family sighting. I've tried over the years to rid my head from the idea that the McCanns dunnit & imagine instead that Brueckner did. But the best evidence against Brueckner is that he allegedly said he dunnit. And he probably did tell people he dunnit, but that doesn't mean he actually dunnit.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I fully concede it isn't enough to prove anything at all in court. But when you test the evidence it is enough to prove on the balance of probability. This is self evident really. It's practically impossible to explain a feasible abduction thesis when accounting for all the details of the apartment status & the Smith family sighting. I've tried over the years to rid my head from the idea that the McCanns dunnit & imagine instead that Brueckner did. But the best evidence against Brueckner is that he allegedly said he dunnit. And he probably did tell people he dunnit, but that doesn't mean he actually dunnit.

Bollocks.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Perhaps someone should send a link to this thread to the Met.  I'm sure once they have had their eyes opened to the error of their ways over the last 13 years they will ramp up the budget needed to investigate the buttons on Gerry's trousers.  A search warrant to seize the offending trousers and submit them to forensic testing is the least I would expect after they've read such persuasive argument from the resident WUM.   

[Wonderfulspam]

Bollocks.

No honestly. I've been here over 10 years. We've tested the plausibility of abduction over & over now. Making all the pieces fit together, the moving door on Gerry's check, the status of the window & shutters, the status of the child-gate & back door etc but it requires a lot of extra imagination, with the abductor hiding in the apartment & having to drug Maddie to explain why she didn't wake up when he carried her out of the window, or requiring 2 abductors plus a driver etc. It's all too far fetched to be reasonably possibly true & so when you apply Occams razor you're left with a sighting of Gerrylike man in coincidental trousers carrying an immobile Maddie off into the night never to be seen again.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No honestly. I've been here over 10 years. We've tested the plausibility of abduction over & over now. Making all the pieces fit together, the moving door on Gerry's check, the status of the window & shutters, the status of the child-gate & back door etc but it requires a lot of extra imagination, with the abductor hiding in the apartment & having to drug Maddie to explain why she didn't wake up when he carried her out of the window, or requiring 2 abductors plus a driver etc. It's all too far fetched to be reasonably possibly true & so when you apply Occams razor you're left with a sighting of Gerrylike man in coincidental trousers carrying an immobile Maddie off into the night never to be seen again.

Bollocks.

[Wonderfulspam]

Bollocks.

Boobies.

[Wonderfulspam]

Sorry I thought we were just stating different parts of human anatomy now. That's the topic for the day.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So the Smithman sighting with all its buttons and sleeves turned out to be the most critical piece of evidence against the McCanns.  Forget the dogs, forget the blood splatter, forget the nipple twiddling and the Last Photo, it all comes down to the buttons.  And yet in its pages and pages of summation the Smith sighting only gets a couple of short and ultimately dismissive paragraphs in the PJ's Final Report.  I guess that's Gordon Brown's fault or maybe it's that after Amaral was taken off the case he was replaced by gullible old retarded morons of the female variety, in drag.

Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Prim?ria he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

 

This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann?s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine?s father. At this time, Gerald?s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

[Wonderfulspam]

So the Smithman sighting with all its buttons and sleeves turned out to be the most critical piece of evidence against the McCanns.  Forget the dogs, forget the blood splatter, forget the nipple twiddling and the Last Photo, it all comes down to the buttons.  And yet in its pages and pages of summation the Smith sighting only gets a couple of short and ultimately dismissive paragraphs in the PJ's Final Report.  I guess that's Gordon Brown's fault or maybe it's that after Amaral was taken off the case he was replaced by gullible old retarded morons of the female variety, in drag.

Why are you appealing to the authority of the Portuguese police, whom everyone claims were inept? Now we're asked to believe them when it suits us?
Why not just do as I've suggested & put forth your logical & plausible explanation of how Maddie was abducted? Debunk the Gerrylike trousers pyjama change abductor scenario that way. It shouldn't be too difficult, considering you fully believe an abduction occurred.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Spam, you?ve totally convinced me but now you need to convince the people that really matter, so please stop wasting your time on us morons and do something positive with your amazing skills and logic.  Phone this number now!
0207 321 9251

[Wonderfulspam]

Spam, you?ve totally convinced me but now you need to convince the people that really matter, so please stop wasting your time on us morons and do something positive with your amazing skills and logic.  Phone this number now!
0207 321 9251

Where's your abduction theory? You've heard mine. You're always asking for a logical & plausible scenario. I've presented it. Now make yours fit the evidence. Can you manage that? Make Brueckner fit in with the most likely sighting.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Where's your abduction theory? You've heard mine. You're always asking for a logical & plausible scenario. I've presented it. Now make yours fit the evidence. Can you manage that? Make Brueckner fit in with the most likely sighting.

I?ve done it fairly recently in this thread but it doesn?t matter now anyway.  I realise now that it would be a physical impossiblity for a man to enter an unlocked ground floor apartment and remove a sleeping child while the parents were elsewhere, and get away with it unseen.  That just couldn?t happen in the 5 or 10 minutes available, so you are right.  The simplest Occam?s Razor solution is to ignore every single witness that night apart from the very vague Smiths who gave their evidence weeks after the event.  That makes the most sense. I see that now.  Thank you.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Anyway, I've put Spam's theory into Chap GPT just to get an impartial seal of approval.  So this is what I asked it:

I believe that based on the testimony of the Smith family who saw a man carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared that the man was Gerry McCann on his way to dispose of her body in a bin on the other side of town. I believe Kate McCann raised the alarm at 9.45pm which would have given Gerry time to retrieve the body from nearby wasteland and carry it through town past the Smiths at the time they say they saw him. Furthermore Aiofe Smith said the man she saw may have had buttons on his trousers and Gerry McCann was photographed wearing trousers with buttons a few weeks later. Also, they said the child being carried had long sleeve pyjamas whereas the McCanns said Madeleine was wearing short sleeve PJs but I think they were lying to throw the police off the scent. Does my theory stand up to scrutiny?

and the reply now has me doubting myself, having decided to throw my support in with Spam and his theory:

I get why that line of reasoning feels compelling?you're trying to reconcile specific witness details with a tight timeline. But when you step back and test it against the broader evidence, your theory runs into several serious problems.

First, on the timeline: the movements of Gerry McCann that evening were partly corroborated by multiple members of the Tapas group, who reported seeing him at the restaurant around the relevant times. For your theory to work, he would have had to leave unnoticed, commit a highly risky act (disposing of a body in a public area), and return without raising suspicion?all within a narrow window. That?s not impossible, but it?s a very high bar, especially in a busy holiday setting.

Second, the Smith family sighting itself has always been treated cautiously by investigators. While one member later suggested a resemblance to Gerry, the original descriptions were more general and did not conclusively identify him. Memory?especially after exposure to media coverage?can shift over time, which weakens the reliability of later identifications.

Third, the clothing details (buttons on trousers, long vs. short sleeves) are quite weak as evidence. Buttons on trousers are common, and the discrepancy about pyjamas cuts both ways: it could suggest the man wasn?t Gerry just as easily as it could suggest the parents were mistaken or misremembering. Using that inconsistency to infer deliberate deception is a big leap without supporting evidence.

Fourth?and most importantly?extensive investigations by Pol?cia Judici?ria, Scotland Yard, and later Bundeskriminalamt have not found evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment or that her parents disposed of her body. In fact, the current main line of inquiry has focused on an external suspect, Christian Br?ckner.

Finally, your theory requires several assumptions stacking together: that the McCanns lied about clothing, that Gerry left unseen, that he was the man seen by the Smiths, and that he successfully concealed all evidence. Each assumption adds uncertainty, and together they make the overall explanation less plausible than alternatives that require fewer leaps.

So, in short: your theory is internally creative, but it doesn?t stand up well to scrutiny when weighed against timelines, witness reliability, and the lack of supporting forensic evidence. If you want, I can walk through the competing theories and how investigators evaluate them.

So now this has left me wondering if Chat GPT isn't actually some moronic old woman sitting at home on the internet answering stupid questions put to her in between knitting bootees for her grandchildren.