Wandering Off Topic

[misty]

Surely you'd have to agree the same could be said about the tapas guests evidence though? There's no way to verify anything in terms of the exact time the alarm was raised. Incredibly, were now supposed to believe SY have, somehow. You can completely dismiss the Smith family sighting if you have to. That's totally up to you. But you're never going to get anywhere that way. In fact, your heroes SY felt the Smith family evidence significant enough to feature on Crimewatch. Why do you think they might have done that?

Crucially, none of the Smiths recognised the man they allegedly saw as Gerry when making 2 statements in May 2007, one of which was to PJ. The adults were clearly following media coverage and their collective memories were only piqued when Murat was taken in for questioning.
Smithman efits were featured on Crimewatch because there was a possibility that they showed the face of the man Jane T saw - detail Jane couldn't supply. You'll recall SY's appeal provided no details whatsoever about the clothing Smithman was wearing.

[Wonderfulspam]

Crucially, none of the Smiths recognised the man they allegedly saw as Gerry when making 2 statements in May 2007, one of which was to PJ. The adults were clearly following media coverage and their collective memories were only piqued when Murat was taken in for questioning.
Smithman efits were featured on Crimewatch because there was a possibility that they showed the face of the man Jane T saw - detail Jane couldn't supply. You'll recall SY's appeal provided no details whatsoever about the clothing Smithman was wearing.

Yes, like I said. Dismiss the Smith family evidence, attack it, because you must. The most likely sighting of Madeleine simply doesn't fit with an abduction. It never has. Certainly, no one here dares make Brueckner fit, because he'd had to have similar trousers to Gerry, have drugged Madeleine & changed her pyjamas. If you're going to account for the small details that is.

[misty]

The poor old Smith family. They who must be attacked or dismissed altogether to make an abduction by a stranger make any sense. I feel sorry for them having to be involved in the case. All they wanted was a family evening out but thanks to the McCanns their lives have been blighted for the last 19 years really. Although, obviously, I have no sympathy at all for the McCanns or any of the tapas guests who outright refused to assist the police further in a missing child investigation.

Why do you have sympathy for one man who
a) effectively cleared Murat of abduction
b) implicated Gerry based on his gait rather than by facial recognition
c) lied to PJ about being unable to produce an efit when it really mattered in May 2007
d) left PJ with a thorn in their side in the form of a potential abductor who hadn't been identified, thus providing       PJ targets, the McCanns, with their defence
e) provided an efit 16 months later to private detectives rather than the relevant authorities before the case was shelved

The Smith family words and actions had consequences way beyond their original intentions, honourable or not. All imo.

[misty]

Yes, like I said. Dismiss the Smith family evidence, attack it, because you must. The most likely sighting of Madeleine simply doesn't fit with an abduction. It never has. Certainly, no one here dares make Brueckner fit, because he'd had to have similar trousers to Gerry, have drugged Madeleine & changed her pyjamas. If you're going to account for the small details that is.

The Smiths didn't see either CB or Gerry that night, regardless of attire. Their alleged sighting was to deflect suspicion from Murat, nothing more, nothing less imo.

[Wonderfulspam]

Why do you have sympathy for one man who
a) effectively cleared Murat of abduction
b) implicated Gerry based on his gait rather than by facial recognition
c) lied to PJ about being unable to produce an efit when it really mattered in May 2007
d) left PJ with a thorn in their side in the form of a potential abductor who hadn't been identified, thus providing       PJ targets, the McCanns, with their defence
e) provided an efit 16 months later to private detectives rather than the relevant authorities before the case was shelved

The Smith family words and actions had consequences way beyond their original intentions, honourable or not. All imo.

Yes attack attack attack! We simply can't have the very obvious conclusion being drawn from the entirety.  I've asked others to try but no one seems to want to. Can you make the Smith family sighting fit with an abduction scenario at All?
Kate, having examined all the details, said she believed the Tanner & Smith sighting could possibly be related. So she felt it plausible the abductor had a hair cut while he was wandering around Luz carrying a sleeping Maddie for the best part of an hour. I suppose she had to really.

[Wonderfulspam]

The Smiths didn't see either CB or Gerry that night, regardless of attire. Their alleged sighting was to deflect suspicion from Murat, nothing more, nothing less imo.

So the whole family Lied? Travelled back to Portugal to lie to the police then later continued to lie to the MET police Also? That seems plausible to you does It? If so then I think this conversation is done. I've got better things to do with my time than to consider such outright nonsense frankly.

[misty]

So the whole family Lied? Travelled back to Portugal to lie to the police then later continued to lie to the MET police Also? That seems plausible to you does It? If so then I think this conversation is done. I've got better things to do with my time than to consider such outright nonsense frankly.

At no stage did any of the family identify Gerry as the man they allegedly saw. It was others who subsequently placed that evidential burden on the Smiths.

[Joe Blogs]

Crucially, none of the Smiths recognised the man they allegedly saw as Gerry when making 2 statements in May 2007, one of which was to PJ. The adults were clearly following media coverage and their collective memories were only piqued when Murat was taken in for questioning.
Smithman efits were featured on Crimewatch because there was a possibility that they showed the face of the man Jane T saw - detail Jane couldn't supply. You'll recall SY's appeal provided no details whatsoever about the clothing Smithman was wearing.

How does the Smithman sighting rule out Murat, misty?

[misty]

How does the Smithman sighting rule out Murat, misty?

You have to ask yourself why Martin Smith needed to mention that the man + child he saw wasn't Murat, whom he knew, thus equating him with the man + child Jane saw and tentatively thought was Murat from the way he walked.
How many similarly-dressed unidentified men carrying a small girl were wandering around Luz in that 45min period?
Smiths didn't come forward until Murat's name & face were all over the news.

[Joe Blogs]

You have to ask yourself why Martin Smith needed to mention that the man + child he saw wasn't Murat, whom he knew, thus equating him with the man + child Jane saw and tentatively thought was Murat from the way he walked.
How many similarly-dressed unidentified men carrying a small girl were wandering around Luz in that 45min period?
Smiths didn't come forward until Murat's name & face were all over the news.

OK, thanks, misty!

[misty]

OK, thanks, misty!

You may also want to watch Amaral's conflation of the Smith and Tanner sightings.
https://youtu.be/tUHp85TyJ0Y?list=PL2fTW9A1CD3JTao0EsHfy9lOqnOOU3466&t=938

[Vertigo Swirl]

Spam has asserted in his earlier post today that the Portuguese came to the conclusion that Madeleine died and an abduction staged.  That was their working premise while Amaral was in charge, but after he left they took a more broad minded approach and their actual conclusion was they hadn't got a scooby do what happened to her and that there was a lack of any evidence against the McCanns (and that's despite the buttons, the sleeves, the dogs, the blood splatter, the frozen cadaver fluids, etc).  That's not an appeal to authority btw, it's just a fact. 
Also, there are explanations for Smithman within an abduction theory - 1) he was the abductor 2) he was an innocent father like Dr Totman.  Descriptions of his appearance by the Smiths were vague and likely to be inaccurate considering the long period of time between sighting and reporting and/or influenced media reports.   Anyone who dismisses this as possible or likely isn't thinking straight or being honest with themselves.

[Joe Blogs]

You may also want to watch Amaral's conflation of the Smith and Tanner sightings.
https://youtu.be/tUHp85TyJ0Y?list=PL2fTW9A1CD3JTao0EsHfy9lOqnOOU3466&t=938

Yes, I certainly will, misty!

[Eleanor]

Yes, I certainly will, misty!

You might want to consider that Amaral didn't look like that during his investigation. He looked like a raving nutter and was drunk most of the time.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Why do you have sympathy for one man who
a) effectively cleared Murat of abduction
b) implicated Gerry based on his gait rather than by facial recognition
c) lied to PJ about being unable to produce an efit when it really mattered in May 2007
d) left PJ with a thorn in their side in the form of a potential abductor who hadn't been identified, thus providing       PJ targets, the McCanns, with their defence
e) provided an efit 16 months later to private detectives rather than the relevant authorities before the case was shelved

The Smith family words and actions had consequences way beyond their original intentions, honourable or not. All imo.

It is odd how much they are revered when swifter action on their part might have meant the case being solved many years ago.  I wonder if they ever felt guilty about that?  I would have beaten myself up about it daily for the rest of my life, quite unforgiveable really.