Martin Smith

Tigger wrote:

Christine wrote:If we only knew why.....

Freemasons.

Well if the masons are in anyway involved in any of this we'll have more luck trying to find out where jimmy hoffa is.

More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

SelectedSeconds wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

The prosecutor was sure he was there - that's good enough for me.

He probably was there at 10 pm, but only just. Remember he first used the 'quizz lady" for his alibi.

SelectedSeconds wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

The prosecutor was sure he was there - that's good enough for me.

If you are talking about the final PJ report summary - it said it was established that he was there at the time - that is not being personally sure. What is there in the DVD files which establishes this? I gather everything in the final PJ report had a reference to the pages in it - this comment didn't. It might be nitpicking though.

The PJ were not allowed to investigate the Smith sighting any further because it was decided by the judge not to call the Smith family back to Portugal for witness statements, opting instead for rogatory letters. Of course, nothing came of this, just what the political powers of both countries wanted.

In reply to those criticising Gonçalo Amaral, I would like to remind you that he was not the head investigator, he was the coordinator. He was not the one who made the decisions about the investigation nor was he the one who decided to make the McCanns arguidos.

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

Unless it was the abductor of course. He wouldn't be too keen to come forward.

This is true - but then if it was you would have to disqualify Jane Tanner's sighting, no?

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

Unless it was the abductor of course. He wouldn't be too keen to come forward.

But we know there was a sighting , by an independant Witness (s) The Smiths , so if they launch an appeal , and the guy does not come forward Bingo
thats usualy your man .u could argue that , he may not watch TV etc , but thats how its usualy done , the police all the time say "Julie was last seen leaving the Night club , with a tall man wearing a Gold Jacket" etc etc we would like Hime to come forward to Rule Him out .thats the Key rule someone out

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

Unless it was the abductor of course. He wouldn't be too keen to come forward.

This is true - but then if it was you would have to disqualify Jane Tanner's sighting, no?

Why?

I mean't if it is believed that Jane saw the abductor and not just anyone, then how would you explain him walking towards one direction and over half hour later walking in another direction carrying an abducted child that people would be looking for. In any case the two descriptions were different for the man.

After a busy night of Abducting , Hide and Seek with Gery, and the leap of faith out of the Window .
the bugger forgot where He parked his Car

SelectedSeconds wrote:Wasn't there some muck up with the rogatories for the Smiths? Didn't the PJ fail to realise that they had to be served in the Irish Republic, not the UK?

The PJ doesn't issue rogatory letters.
Would you care to try again?

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

Unless it was the abductor of course. He wouldn't be too keen to come forward.

This is true - but then if it was you would have to disqualify Jane Tanner's sighting, no?

Why?

I mean't if it is believed that Jane saw the abductor and not just anyone, then how would you explain him walking towards one direction and over half hour later walking in another direction carrying an abducted child that people would be looking for. In any case the two descriptions were different for the man.

The descriptions were vague, as one would expect consideing there was no suspicion at the time that he may have been committing a crime but considering it's a small town they were remarkably similar and neither came forward to rule themselves out.

So many questions.

Another question, why the delay in the Smiths coming forward?

the ways they were similar don't mean much - the ways they differed is more important. I.E. dark top and light trousers? could be any of a number of men wearing that combination. Being a small town doesn't mean everyone dresses completely uniquely.

Carrying small child? Not an unusual thing in PDL at night. Differences were man's hair length - short means short and reasonably long means that. I don't know about the delay they came forward, I haven't read the dates on this.

So Two abductors carrying Two Children

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

Unless it was the abductor of course. He wouldn't be too keen to come forward.

This is true - but then if it was you would have to disqualify Jane Tanner's sighting, no?

Why?

I mean't if it is believed that Jane saw the abductor and not just anyone, then how would you explain him walking towards one direction and over half hour later walking in another direction carrying an abducted child that people would be looking for. In any case the two descriptions were different for the man.

He probably took a round about route to stay off the main roads. And there could have been two of them.

Round about route to where?Aand staying off main roads didn't stop him being spotted.
Two of them? They took it in turns to carry her? One one way and then another the other way? I like the way you say he probably



Bottom line is we don't know nothing either way or even know what it probably was

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:So Two abductors carrying Two Children

No, Two abductors who swapped the child over from one to the other.

A lot of planning , it would have been quicker to Drive away , with the other abductor at the wheel , rather than do a sponsored walk of PDL and be seen .
supposedly twice

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote: the ways they were similar don't mean much - the ways they differed is more important. I.E. dark top and light trousers? could be any of a number of men wearing that combination. Being a small town doesn't mean everyone dresses completely uniquely.

Carrying small child? Not an unusual thing in PDL at night. Differences were man's hair length - short means short and reasonably long means that. I don't know about the delay they came forward, I haven't read the dates on this.

Absolutely, if it was just a couple of dads carrying sleeping children from or to home then fine but why would they not come forward to rule themselves of the enquiry, what would they have to hide?

Nothing - it is possible they didn't want to get involved, who knows, they may have been accused of lying! Either that or one of the sightings was the abductor, I don't buy both sightings as the abductor. JMO.

Nellie wrote:
Absolutely, we don't know. Tis a pity a few more people don't remember this before the come up with their "Facts".

Agree with you half way. There are facts and there are suspicions/opinions/beliefs. There are also unproven *facts* on both sides.

quote="Nellie"]

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

fizzbomb200 wrote:More to the point , why have the Mc's PI's ,never asked the Smith sighting man to come forward
Gerry , Clarence , why not make a public appeal for the mystery man to come forward? .

The PJ will have done that, won't they? No, perhaps not.

You don't know if they did or not. Your post was just a dig at the police. Even if they didn't, there was nothing stopping the *real* man coming forward without being asked all this time. Unless it was someone who doesn't watch tv or read the papers. Even if he did, maybe he missed it, wasn't exactly publicised that much. I haven't read any witness putting Gerry in the bar (independent that is) near that time. Not saying he wasn't either.

Unless it was the abductor of course. He wouldn't be too keen to come forward.

This is true - but then if it was you would have to disqualify Jane Tanner's sighting, no?

Why?

I mean't if it is believed that Jane saw the abductor and not just anyone, then how would you explain him walking towards one direction and over half hour later walking in another direction carrying an abducted child that people would be looking for. In any case the two descriptions were different for the man.

He probably took a round about route to stay off the main roads. And there could have been two of them.

Round about route to where?Aand staying off main roads didn't stop him being spotted.
Two of them? They took it in turns to carry her? One one way and then another the other way? I like the way you say he probably



Bottom line is we don't know nothing either way or even know what it probably was

Absolutely, we don't know. Tis a pity a few more people don't remember this before the come up with their "Facts".[/quote]

But we can go off Police Procedure , as i stated before , if a witness has seen a suspicious Person after a Crime has been committed , The description is put out and the Person , ether comes Forward and is ruled
out , or does not , and that usually indicate a suspect ,
Remember we are told that Jane tanner did not even mention to the McCann that She had even seen any one on the 3rd , She did not want to worry them !!!!

Now back to the Two Abductors ,if they were on Foot it would indicate Locals , or local Knowledge , after all they knew the back routs , but thats a bit close to Home isn't it .
Surly a 2nd Abductor would be the Driver , quick getaway and all that

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote:

tyra wrote:

amethyst wrote: the ways they were similar don't mean much - the ways they differed is more important. I.E. dark top and light trousers? could be any of a number of men wearing that combination. Being a small town doesn't mean everyone dresses completely uniquely.

Carrying small child? Not an unusual thing in PDL at night. Differences were man's hair length - short means short and reasonably long means that. I don't know about the delay they came forward, I haven't read the dates on this.

Absolutely, if it was just a couple of dads carrying sleeping children from or to home then fine but why would they not come forward to rule themselves of the enquiry, what would they have to hide?

Nothing - it is possible they didn't want to get involved, who knows, they may have been accused of lying! Either that or one of the sightings was the abductor, I don't buy both sightings as the abductor. JMO.

How unlucky that a father is carrying his sleeping pyjama'd blonde daughter through a small town at virtually the same time as a lone male abductor was also carrying a sleeping pyjama'd blone girl of around the same age. Spooky.

Not sure what you mean.
Does that mean you believe the Smiths witnessed the abductor and not Tanner? Because Tanner did not see any blonde child. I don't see why any father would be unlucky - unless you mean he would be a suspect just by being there?

[If you read the Smith sighting report , its clear that the Guy carrying the Blonde Girl , With Pink PJ's in an awkward fashion , who averted his eyes from the Smiths , clearly did not wish to be seen .

Isn't it interesting , after this Person carrying the Child was seen , and more importantly knew He had been seen .
a few Days later Jane Remembers She also saw someone , walking in the other way ....He went that way !!!!!!!!

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:
Absolutely, we don't know. Tis a pity a few more people don't remember this before the come up with their "Facts".

Agree with you half way. There are facts and there are suspicions/opinions/beliefs. There are also unproven *facts* on both sides.

Well that's an advance, great. We half way agree. But I must say that some of you are not very well informed, because I am reading the same old misinformation on here that proliferated on 3As. Probably not your fault, but Pros are notorious for doing their homework on the few facts that we do have. People seem to think that we sit around blindly believing The MCanns. I can promise you that we don't.

I have come to think not all antis are right or wrong and vice versa for pros. That is impossible because life is not black and white. I think both make errors in thinking judgement postings etc. Lets forget for a moment those with an *agenda*. For me personally its about realising I'm wrong when I am and standing up for my beleifs when I don't think I am until I am either proved wrong or proved right. I think it's high time people stopped scoring points though. Some postings from last night including my own I admit and something someone said today made me think - what if I'm wrong? I think that is healthy thing for all of us. Rambling now so will stop.

And the PJ discounted it ..

Nellie wrote:Jane Tanner informed the Police of what she had seen, on the night of the 3rd of May. The statement is in The Files.

And the PJ discounted it ..

Remember the Guy the Smiths saw with the Child , knew he had been seen .. think about that

Tyra, I'm sure that just like 'Barcelona Man' who came forward after two years that any individual would feel confident in coming forward with new evidence if it would help the investigation.

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:

amethyst wrote:

Nellie wrote:
Absolutely, we don't know. Tis a pity a few more people don't remember this before the come up with their "Facts".

Agree with you half way. There are facts and there are suspicions/opinions/beliefs. There are also unproven *facts* on both sides.

Well that's an advance, great. We half way agree. But I must say that some of you are not very well informed, because I am reading the same old misinformation on here that proliferated on 3As. Probably not your fault, but Pros are notorious for doing their homework on the few facts that we do have. People seem to think that we sit around blindly believing The MCanns. I can promise you that we don't.

I have come to think not all antis are right or wrong and vice versa for pros. That is impossible because life is not black and white. I think both make errors in thinking judgement postings etc. Lets forget for a moment those with an *agenda*. For me personally its about realising I'm wrong when I am and standing up for my beleifs when I don't think I am until I am either proved wrong or proved right. I think it's high time people stopped scoring points though. Some postings from last night including my own I admit and something someone said today made me think - what if I'm wrong? I think that is healthy thing for all of us. Rambling now so will stop.

Good post. I'd give you one of those thingies if I could.

thanks nellie.