Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

It seems no one who believes the Smiths evidence is thoroughly credible and reliable is able to explain why despite this it does not reach the evidential threshold.  Anybody?

[Wonderfulspam]

It seems no one who believes the Smiths evidence is thoroughly credible and reliable is able to explain why despite this it does not reach the evidential threshold.  Anybody?

This is a bit of desperate appeal to authority really. The evidence doesn't reach the threshold, therefore it's impossible it could have happened, is your argument . It is false logic. But I wouldn't expect anything else really.

[Wonderfulspam]

VS can you explain why Gerry put the time the alarm was raised a ridiculous 10 minutes later than the rest of the group? Can you explain that? I can.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The Smith sighting doesn?t reach not reach the evidential threshold because it is weak, vague, contradictory and Smith?s sudden moment of alleged clarity 4 months after the event stretches credulity to breaking point, therefore it cannot be relied upon, that?s what no McCann sceptic on this forum will ever admit..  It proves nothing, only that a man was seen walking through town with a child at around the time Madeleine was reported missing.   It could have been an innocent dad, it could have been an abductor but if you believe the Smiths timings and you believe the Tapas group?s timings it couldn?t have been Gerry because both sets of people place the time of the critical events between 9.50 and 10pm, leaving absolutely no time for Gerry to carry out his alleged dastardly deed.

There is evidence that the alarm had not actually been raised by 10pm but we are told to dismiss that on the basis of a telephone being wrong (no evidence that it was wrong), a witness who actually checked the time a couple of minites before so was certain what time she passed the apartment and found it quiet, no one testing shutters, no one screaming for a missing child, no one running up and down the street, no commotion to be heard whatosever.  The clock on her phone would have to have been set a good 10 of 15 minites fast so that she was actually passing the apartment well before 10 in that case.  So yes, Gerry can be Smithman if you want him to be but you do have to ignore the Smiths own timings as well as the timeline agreed by the McCanns and their friend as well as the witness who heard nothimg unusual at 10pm. 

 

[Wonderfulspam]

The Smith sighting doesn?t reach not reach the evidential threshold because it is weak, vague, contradictory and Smith?s sudden moment of alleged clarity 4 months after the event stretches credulity to breaking point, therefore it cannot be relied upon, that?s what no McCann sceptic on this forum will ever admit..  It proves nothing, only that a man was seen walking through town with a child at around the time Madeleine was reported missing.   It could have been an innocent dad, it could have been an abductor but if you believe the Smiths timings and you believe the Tapas group?s timings it couldn?t have been Gerry because both sets of people place the time of the critical events between 9.50 and 10pm, leaving absolutely no time for Gerry to carry out his alleged dastardly deed.

There is evidence that the alarm had not actually been raised by 10pm but we are told to dismiss that on the basis of a telephone being wrong (no evidence that it was wrong), a witness who actually checked the time a couple of minites before so was certain what time she passed the apartment and found it quiet, no one testing shutters, no one screaming for a missing child, no one running up and down the street, no commotion to be heard whatosever.  The clock on her phone would have to have been set a good 10 of 15 minites fast so that she was actually passing the apartment well before 10 in that case.  So yes, Gerry can be Smithman if you want him to be but you do have to ignore the Smiths own timings as well as the timeline agreed by the McCanns and their friend as well as the witness who heard nothimg unusual at 10pm.

I already told you. Your 9:58 witness would have been when Kate was just sat on the bed & everyone else was on the poolside of the apartment. Dianne didn't arrive in the apartment until 5 mins later than everyone else, then she tested the shutters. Gerry claims he went out & tested the shutters immediately but there are no witnesses to this.

[Wonderfulspam]

We're back to innocent dad, struggling down the road, uncomfortably carrying an inert Maddie clone who was noticeably dead to the world or the Gerrylike abductor who drugged Maddie & changed her pyjamas.

[Wonderfulspam]

The 9:58 witness didn't see Kate running from end to end of the car park crying for Madeleine & wishing she'd dressed her in long sleeve pyjamas as she claimed in her book. The witness didn't see that because it was a complete fabrication by Kate. It is not supported by any witnesses. It was made up to give the impression she actually searched initially & to extricate Maddie as being the long sleeved girl the Smiths saw.

[Wonderfulspam]

At around 9:58 Fiona hadn't even sent Matt to reception at that point, which Gerry claimed he did. So the only people out looking for Madeleine were Matt, Russell, Fiona, Rachel & David. Jane Tanner was in her apartment & Rachel went to hers. So, it was only Matt, Fiona, Russell & David searching. Kate stayed inside the apartment & the others were searching poolside, whilst Gerry went elsewhere. No one went out raising the noisy shutters until over 5 minutes later when Dianne went to 5a.

[Wonderfulspam]

4078    ?After Evie had been poorly, do you know any, have you any idea what time that was? Presumably it?s, you say that you assume Russell got back to the table (inaudible).?

 Reply    ?Well I mean Russell, by the time Russell had got back to the table err he?d err they?d err they?d cooked another steak for him, it didn?t take very long and he literally I suppose just had about two bites of it when err Kate came running, so that must have been about, I don?t know, getting on for ten o? clock I would imagine because, well just working out the time that we had our starters and our main course and we were all finished our main course, it was only Russell err that had his to eat. We would have been waiting normally for him to finish that and order desert.?

.............

Dianne couldn't be certain of the time only 'getting on for'10pm but it was soon after Russell got his steak, which was also said by Fiona. Russell wasn't certain of the time himself but he got back to the table about 9:45 approx, his steak came, he had a few bites then Kate came screaming. With Matts initial evidence also that Kate left the table around 9:50 it is pretty clear, to me at least, that the alarm was raised before 10pm.

[Wonderfulspam]

Almost all the times in this case are just estimates including Russell returning to the table at 9:45 which I used to make my further estimates from. It's all guess work. There's only really the time the GNR logged the call at 10:41 that can really be relied upon. Gerry's precise time of 10:03, pushing the timeline forward & him claiming Kate spent ten minutes in the apartment, that he was starting to worry about her lateness when she claimed she was in the apartment for just moments, that should stand out to any competent investigator really, but, McCanns not suspects.