Where does this now leave the McCanns?

For six years, they have downplayed Smithman. The timing was wrong, loads of other things were wrong, poor Mister Smith got "the visit" by the Everest Inquisition, why?

We were all conditioned to believe that the real culprit was Bundleman. Jane gave us a very colourful description. His hair, his clothes, the way he carried the "child", the pyjamas, that became more detailed, and rich, and bright, and colourful, as time went on. We had Pinkie and the Brain showing us photofits and artists impressions at press conferences. And while every eye was on Bundleman, trundling along in the background went Smithman, in his beige clamdigger trousers, unnoticed.

But now Bundleman is yesterday's news. He is an ex suspect. He has ceased to be. Flavour of the month is now Smithman. The very sighting that the McCanns wanted to hide from us, by drawing our attention elsewhere.

They didn't demand photofits of Smithman (now we know why) or insist that the PJ follow him up, like they did with Bundleman. Why not? Surely both sightings were equally as valid?

They can't be happy that suddenly Smithman is on the front of every paper, the lead on every news bulletin and the trending topic on every social networking site. Not after all their attempts to keep him under wraps.

What does Smithman actually signify, what is going to come out of this, and where are the McCanns going to go with it?

I have no idea. Martin Smith suspects he saw G McC. SY seem to be having none of it, so we ll just have to wait and see.

Don't you think it was a coincidence that bundle mans clothes are exactly the same as smith man?


What's the probability that two men would look the same, dress the same and both be carrying children 45 minutes apart.


The difference being....bundleman was holding a child like it was a dead body....no contact at all and yet it was a cold night...smith man was holding a child like a father, close to him and it was a cold night.

kitti wrote:Don't you think it was a coincidence that bundle mans clothes are exactly the same as smith man?

What's the probability that two men would look the same, dress the same and both be carrying children 45 minutes apart.

Excellent point kitti.  

oh I see what youre saying. I had a revelation moment. perhaps The Tortoise will too, if as we are led to believe the police are monitoring what is being said about the McCs.

It leaves the McCanns in a place rather different to the one they occupied only a few weeks ago.

Visitors to the main McCann-doubting sites have been numerous, twitter has been seething, and downloads of the Smith sighting have been breaking records. Comments on articles in the Guardian, Yahoo, and all manner of different places have shown a marked reluctance to believe the two doctors or their chums.

The libel trial has been aired, as have the poor performances of their witnesses. The absence from the courtroom and from the programme last night of their Tapas mates ("we were so into each other") has been noted by thousands, and many of those things they seem to prefer forgotten have been mentioned in the mainstream media. The dogs, arguido status, the Smith sighting (in spades), the impossible timeline, the sheer distance in footsteps and navigation between the Tapas restaurant and the apartment, the exposed nature of the flat itself, the serial nature of their child-leaving, and many more things have been aired in public, and a glance at the comments colums shows the poor regard in which they're held.

Coupled with the possibilities issuing from the whole Crimewatch business, where people may come forward (or may have already done so) who could prove embarrassing, their legal difficulties are tremendous. Let's face it, a week ago we all began to dare to think that the wheel was coming off the McBandwagon because of the trajectory of the libel trial proceedings, which seems to be going really quite badly for Team McCann. And that's without Dr Amaral's defence even engaging the starter motor!

So where does it leave them? Floundering would be the word I would use. With 'desperate' coming soon.

The pressure is most definitely rising. It could blow at any seam, and my bet would be a divorced or otherwise wronged seam.

Iris wrote:For six years, they have downplayed Smithman.  The timing was wrong, loads of other things were wrong, poor Mister Smith got "the visit" by the Everest Inquisition, why?

We were all conditioned to believe that the real culprit was Bundleman.  Jane gave us a very colourful description.  His hair, his clothes, the way he carried the "child", the pyjamas, that became more detailed, and rich, and bright, and colourful, as time went on.  We had Pinkie and the Brain showing us photofits and artists impressions at press conferences.  And while every eye was on Bundleman, trundling along in the background went Smithman, in his beige clamdigger trousers, unnoticed.

But now Bundleman is yesterday's news.  He is an ex suspect.  He has ceased to be.  Flavour of the month is now Smithman.  The very sighting that the McCanns wanted to hide from us, by drawing our attention elsewhere.

They didn't demand photofits of Smithman (now we know why) or insist that the PJ follow him up, like they did with Bundleman.  Why not?  Surely both sightings were equally as valid?

They can't be happy that suddenly Smithman is on the front of every paper, the lead on every news bulletin and the trending topic on every social networking site.  Not after all their attempts to keep him under wraps.

What does Smithman actually signify, what is going to come out of this, and where are the McCanns going to go with it?

My son text me last night, he has no interest in the case whatsoever and thinks me mad. As we are in Portugal at the moment he text me to say it was on last night. I told him I knew. He text me later after seeing the efits and said "They both could be Gerry!!!!" So if he thinks it how many others will?

According to the many thousands of comments on the press articles thousands of people also think the e fit is Gerry McCann.