Afternoon all.
I am posting this in response to a question raised on the previous article.
Okay, before I begin, can I make clear this is nothing to do with Bonkers Bennett and his loopy theory. I regard Bennett as a fraud and a charlatan.
I have taken a look again at the Smith sighting, as I am sure the investigating officers will have done, and it is perfectly possible that what I am about to say has already been raised with the Smiths and clarified.
One of the difficulties with this case is having any reliable timeline, as much of it relies upon people's recollections and can't be verified.
However, the Smith's dinner that night, at the Dolphin restaurant, is one thing which can be verified.
So, in brief, here is what we know.
The Smith party numbered nine in total, and their table was booked for 19.30
Their itemised bill came to a total of just over 180 euros and was settled by credit/debit card, so we know precisely what time that occurred - 21.27
They then moved on to Kelly's bar where they had some drinks before leaving for their apartment. It was on their way back to the apartment that they believe they encountered the man we refer to as ''Smithman"
I am going to state at this point that I believe the Smith party to be entirely sincere. However, without a fixed reference point, any time estimate is just that - an estimate.
In his statement, Martin Smith said that they left the Dolphin at around 21.00.
We now know he was probably out by about 30 minutes, given that the bill wasn't settled until shortly before 21.30. By the time the party were assembled and ready to move on, it would have been 21.30 or slightly after.
The journey to Kelly's bar would not have taken long, it's only about 50 yards, but some of the party were youngsters, so lets assume it took five minutes. That gives us an arrival time of around 21.35
Here is where the uncertainty arises.
We have the till roll for Kelly's bar, but there are several unknowns.
We know the total for each transaction, and the time. We do not know what drinks were ordered, how many, or how the bill was settled for any of the transactions. We also do not know whether the bill was settled when the drinks were ordered, or on leaving the bar.
That takes us to the next time point on the timeline.
Mr Smith estimated their time of departure as 21.55, because they had an early start the following morning, and the encounter with the mystery man occurring about five minutes later, at approx 22.00.
However - Mr Smith was out by a factor of about half an hour on their arrival time at Kelly's, which raises the question, is the estimate of 21.55 for their departure also out by a similar factor?
I have cross referenced with the transactions at Kelly's Bar.
Here is where it becomes necessary to make an assumption or two
These are the times and the totals for the transactions. I am starting with the earliest one which can possibly be the Smiths, given the time the bill was settled at the Dolphin. They are numbered sequentially on the till roll, so I know none are missing.
1. 21.39.......................... 13.75
2. 21.46.......................... 8.00
3. 21.49.......................... 8.00
4. 21.50........................... 5.00
5 22.16........................... 8.00
6. 22.24........................... 4.00
7. 22.28........................... 3.00
8. 22.29........................... 1.25
9. 22.31........................... 5.75
10. 22.47......................... 11.00
11. 22.53......................... 16.50
So, if we assume that the drinks were rung in at the time the order was placed, the only one which could be the Smiths is timed at 21.39, which is consistent with them leaving the restaurant at approximately 21.30. That total is also consistent with a round of drinks for a group.
For the next hour, all the transactions are for small amounts, probably equating to one or two drinks. The next sizeable order is not until 22.47, which is probably far too late.
So the question is this:
Did the Smiths really leave at 21.55?
Peter Smith estimated they left the restaurant at about 21.00, and had ''a few drinks'' before leaving at around 22.00
Aoife estimated they left the restaurant about 21.30 and spent about half an hour in the bar, but stresses that she knows what time they left because they had an early start.
So - what do the actual records suggest?
Well, they confirm an exit from the restaurant at about 21.30, therefore the round of drinks purchased at 21.39 is almost certainly theirs. It certainly can't be any earlier, because the transaction immediately before was much earlier, just after 20.00
So unless they absolutely threw their drinks down, it is unlikely that they had moved on by 21.55, which is only 15 minutes later.
My guess is that the real figure is probably somewhat later and that it is very unlikely that they left Kelly's prior to 22.15, possibly as late as 22.30
Now - it is perfectly possible that the police have been able to clarify this with them since, with reference to the till transactions at Kelly's, or if they paid on a card which would give a timed transaction.
However, considering that the point where they crossed paths with the ''Man carrying child'' was about five minutes after leaving Kelly's I think it is safe to hypothesize that this was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 22.35
I should also say that if the bill for the drinks was settled on departure, then the only realistic options are the ones at 22.47 or 22.53, which would raise the prospect that their timeline is out by a whole hour.
Happy to hear from anyone who has any thoughts on this
Edited to add for the hard of thinking:
The reason why the Smith sighting reached a dead end with the investigation was due to the person Mr Smith thought he saw had an alibi for the time he thought he saw him
If, however, the time was not accurate, the alibi no longer stands. Does it?
I am posting this in response to a question raised on the previous article.
Okay, before I begin, can I make clear this is nothing to do with Bonkers Bennett and his loopy theory. I regard Bennett as a fraud and a charlatan.
I have taken a look again at the Smith sighting, as I am sure the investigating officers will have done, and it is perfectly possible that what I am about to say has already been raised with the Smiths and clarified.
One of the difficulties with this case is having any reliable timeline, as much of it relies upon people's recollections and can't be verified.
However, the Smith's dinner that night, at the Dolphin restaurant, is one thing which can be verified.
So, in brief, here is what we know.
The Smith party numbered nine in total, and their table was booked for 19.30
Their itemised bill came to a total of just over 180 euros and was settled by credit/debit card, so we know precisely what time that occurred - 21.27
They then moved on to Kelly's bar where they had some drinks before leaving for their apartment. It was on their way back to the apartment that they believe they encountered the man we refer to as ''Smithman"
I am going to state at this point that I believe the Smith party to be entirely sincere. However, without a fixed reference point, any time estimate is just that - an estimate.
In his statement, Martin Smith said that they left the Dolphin at around 21.00.
We now know he was probably out by about 30 minutes, given that the bill wasn't settled until shortly before 21.30. By the time the party were assembled and ready to move on, it would have been 21.30 or slightly after.
The journey to Kelly's bar would not have taken long, it's only about 50 yards, but some of the party were youngsters, so lets assume it took five minutes. That gives us an arrival time of around 21.35
Here is where the uncertainty arises.
We have the till roll for Kelly's bar, but there are several unknowns.
We know the total for each transaction, and the time. We do not know what drinks were ordered, how many, or how the bill was settled for any of the transactions. We also do not know whether the bill was settled when the drinks were ordered, or on leaving the bar.
That takes us to the next time point on the timeline.
Mr Smith estimated their time of departure as 21.55, because they had an early start the following morning, and the encounter with the mystery man occurring about five minutes later, at approx 22.00.
However - Mr Smith was out by a factor of about half an hour on their arrival time at Kelly's, which raises the question, is the estimate of 21.55 for their departure also out by a similar factor?
I have cross referenced with the transactions at Kelly's Bar.
Here is where it becomes necessary to make an assumption or two
These are the times and the totals for the transactions. I am starting with the earliest one which can possibly be the Smiths, given the time the bill was settled at the Dolphin. They are numbered sequentially on the till roll, so I know none are missing.
1. 21.39.......................... 13.75
2. 21.46.......................... 8.00
3. 21.49.......................... 8.00
4. 21.50........................... 5.00
5 22.16........................... 8.00
6. 22.24........................... 4.00
7. 22.28........................... 3.00
8. 22.29........................... 1.25
9. 22.31........................... 5.75
10. 22.47......................... 11.00
11. 22.53......................... 16.50
So, if we assume that the drinks were rung in at the time the order was placed, the only one which could be the Smiths is timed at 21.39, which is consistent with them leaving the restaurant at approximately 21.30. That total is also consistent with a round of drinks for a group.
For the next hour, all the transactions are for small amounts, probably equating to one or two drinks. The next sizeable order is not until 22.47, which is probably far too late.
So the question is this:
Did the Smiths really leave at 21.55?
Peter Smith estimated they left the restaurant at about 21.00, and had ''a few drinks'' before leaving at around 22.00
Aoife estimated they left the restaurant about 21.30 and spent about half an hour in the bar, but stresses that she knows what time they left because they had an early start.
So - what do the actual records suggest?
Well, they confirm an exit from the restaurant at about 21.30, therefore the round of drinks purchased at 21.39 is almost certainly theirs. It certainly can't be any earlier, because the transaction immediately before was much earlier, just after 20.00
So unless they absolutely threw their drinks down, it is unlikely that they had moved on by 21.55, which is only 15 minutes later.
My guess is that the real figure is probably somewhat later and that it is very unlikely that they left Kelly's prior to 22.15, possibly as late as 22.30
Now - it is perfectly possible that the police have been able to clarify this with them since, with reference to the till transactions at Kelly's, or if they paid on a card which would give a timed transaction.
However, considering that the point where they crossed paths with the ''Man carrying child'' was about five minutes after leaving Kelly's I think it is safe to hypothesize that this was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 22.35
I should also say that if the bill for the drinks was settled on departure, then the only realistic options are the ones at 22.47 or 22.53, which would raise the prospect that their timeline is out by a whole hour.
Happy to hear from anyone who has any thoughts on this
Edited to add for the hard of thinking:
The reason why the Smith sighting reached a dead end with the investigation was due to the person Mr Smith thought he saw had an alibi for the time he thought he saw him
If, however, the time was not accurate, the alibi no longer stands. Does it?
It is really impossible to know . What you write is quite possible but the following is also:
ReplyDeleteDrinks are seldom paid for when you get them, in Portugal . The usual is for the drinks to come first and either the bill comes at the end or you just want to have one and ask for the bill that still only come after the drink . In both options, it is not usual that the bill comes with the drinks. However, since this is an expat bar in an expat town maybe it is the norm to pay for your round with the arrival of drinks.
I also thought about the pricing of 13 euros as the only expenditure consistent with the size of the group. However, there are only 3 adults that would have alcoholic drinks Martin and his wife and Peter . His wife is pregnant and the kids are minors. So 3 beers for 8 euros , say , is not extraordinary 11 years ago. I exclude the kids as they would not be having sugary drinks at night , but who knows. I do agree with you that it is more than likely the 13 euro expenditure though. " 20 minutes to half hour to have a beer or another drink, it is not slow drinking but I wouldn't say gulping it down like a shot of tequilla :-) Considering the fact they had five children with them, one of them only 4, it would not surprise me that the stay was a short one.
I think that 21 .55 to 22.10 is quite possible but I would have some reservations going any later than that considering the group of statements.
But really anything is possible.
I agree - there is a wider window than is suggested in the files. They could be spot on, but the potential margin for error is also there. Potentially, if there were other witnesses they may not realise it if the time is significantly out.
DeleteBecause of that, I am not convinced that the sighting is significant. Again, my personal opinion only
My belief is that Smith saw precisely what he says he saw and who he says he saw between 2155 to 2210. It is the recognition triggered by mannerisms that tells me he is correct, in my opinion of course.
DeleteI slightly diverge from you in the sense that I am inclined to believe the body was moved once . I think it was firstly hidden around the area of the Smith sighting and then moved later. But , of course, I may well be wrong.
I cannot understand other theories that put either smithman walking around with a decoy child as that makes no sense. So, GM is seen with a decoy child , a witness comes forward and says they saw him... Oh but that was another child... say again? Nobody would believe him. He had to conceal the body and they had no car, and that is what he did. Jane Tanner provided the abductor they needed . No need for GM to do it as well.
The other theory, well that is plain nonsense and I do wonder what the point is for CMOMM to discredit one of the only independent witnesses of this case and trying to frame Murat for it with blatantly false facts . My gut tells me ,a collective ego trip. I wonder do they realize how much their theories resemble the T9's tactics.
The Smiths had I assume, a couple of drinks with their meal earlier. Given that they have stated they were worried about an early departure, is it unlikely they didn't 'down' their beers but only drunk half of them? I've left a bar without finishing my drink if I had enough already or was in a hurry before. The kids could have been sleepy or anxious... it is not impossible but still speculation.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they saw him before going to the bar?
I agree that the police have checked this and have a better understanding as to what happened. There are some details in this case that are not clarified in the sense we don't know what the SY or PJ believe truly. Amaral suggested they wanted to hear from them again so perhaps there's something there who knows?
As for the sighting itself, I've never understood why Gery specifically triggered the memory or if it is even possible after so long to remain objective with what you remember. Since they were more than one witnesses I also think they are credible. But then this 'route' is heading away from were I always thought the body was. Unless it was in a house which I don't think it's likely cuz it creates a ton of other probs.
They're Irish..like us scots necking a beer in 15-20 is a normal time limit.
DeleteAfternoon NT. Who knew this would cause so much outrage? I'm sure I read this post a while back (as in way before 9th June, unless I was dreaming) and I remember thinking "hmm, that's interesting, never thought about that before", and meant to come back to it at some point.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's just fresh meat isn't it, another thing to 'out' you with.
Obviously not referring to those sane people who are capable of respectfully disagreeing without trying to pin WW2 on you.
Don't tell anyone I dropped by will you? I'm not allowed to be on the internet whilst sunbathing 😂
You remember that bit in Life of Brian where they are getting ready tostone the guy for saying "Jehovah"?
DeleteWell, I know how he feels
:)
I saw the "Shouldn't you be looking after your kids?" slur, by the way. I don't know if this has dawned on McCann supporters but when it comes to issues about childcare, they probably shouldn't go there....
Just you concentrate on an even tan Sade :). Yeah i saw that comment too..great level of debate! Btw at least she relented and posted my comment in full.
DeletePs...feel free to share any gratutious bikini pics...and don't drug your kids to go out on the lash. ;)
DeleteLol! It's just uncanny isn't it, a Textusa supporter inventing what someone means from a few words. Not once have I mentioned holiday, the beach, or that I even have my children with me. Can I not be frying myself in the sun miles away from the coast, child free, on a business trip?
ReplyDeleteIf only 🙂
I've just seen its reply, and can sense the tiniest bit of sarcasm - I insist I am always polite actually, unless others are rude first. Maybe I've been rude to Obvious Anonymous #1 somewhere, somewhen, but how would I know? There are more people called anonymous these days than Steve. How queer 😁
Your reply to the nosy anon was very funny :) Seems to have shut them up too ....
DeleteWhat they want is a slanging match, which they won't get from me - not whilst it's what they're craving anyhow 😊
DeleteThat 'whispering' on Twitter called me sunbeam recently, which made sense (almost) of the previous tweet's 'her'; I'm guessing I'm Walker now too. Not going to be much of a swingers party is it, with most of us being the same person 'n all 😄
I can only find time for the pisstake opportunities at the moment sorry folks. Attempts at intelligent debates will resume as soon as possible, please hold the line 😎
Yes, I think she's the one who has been leaving rather disturbing posts on here which I have binned, always calls me sunbeam too, the dozy cow
DeleteI'll be back to posting something a bit more sensible tomorrow too - got to have a day off occasionally :)
Aoife's description of the trousers with buttons on the side convinced me that the Smith family saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's body. You'd think someone would know what Gerry was wearing that night?
ReplyDelete