WHY ARE SMITHMAN SUPPORTERS SO AGGRESSIVE and ABUSIVE ?
One of the extraordinary side issues of the whole SmithGerryMan issue is no longer the facts, such as they are or can be ascertained and interpreted. It is the level of verbal violence, hatred, and abuse hurled at anyone who dares to suggest that the man seen by a few members of the Smith family was NOT Gerry McCann carrying the fresh corpse of his first born daughter.
Perhaps I should start with this observation from one of the acknowledged great philosophers of recent times. Bertrand Russell.
“If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If someone maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you should feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction.
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.”
REF: 1
I am, and I hope most of my readers are, quite happy and indeed intellectually obliged to change our view of the likely events if evidence is discovered which challenges the scenario tentatively put together on the evidence which existed up to that point. Indeed I have done so, when a more detailed analysis of things said, particularly by Kate in her book, but also by others were shown to link more neatly with other existing known facts. That led me to tend towards a death on Wednesday 2nd May, rather than somewhat earlier in the week which I had tentatively deduced from the forgery of the Pool Photo. In the light of this new interpretation the fact of the forgery itself suddenly assumed a far greater and probative significance which I have discussed elsewhere.
If yet more evidence comes to light, and more new convincing arguments are proposed, I may need to revise my current position again. Obviously. That is how science and the law works. Or should !
****
One of the recent protagonists comments on the Paul James Facebook page, (which I can recommend for a tough but generally respectful discussion), using the name Antonio Lopez Ribeiro
REF 2
Paul James is endlessly patient and courteous towards him, and painstakingly dissects what he is saying, but more recently a sense of exasperation has become plain.
I had, perhaps unwisely, posted the link to my two chapters on SmithMan, and received in reply a tirade of abuse and misinformation, which Paul James chose not to moderate.
Expressions used include “Your steadfast pig headedness. . . petty minded whining and complaining’, ‘You know as well as I do’, ‘Bernie Bullshitters claims’, ‘you have created anything to detract from the Smiths sightings’, ‘ don’t make shit up’ and so on in a similar vein.
I have perhaps for obvious reasons decided not to post on that site again.
REF 3
The article in question is long, almost 1,800 words, and runs to nearly 3 sides of A4. I have included it in full in the Appendix, but here I shall simply use extracts as we examine the process being used, and the contortions which SmithMan acolytes have used to convince themselves that their case is the the only version of events, and therefore to be forced on others by aggression, rudeness and disparagement.
APP 1
To sum up the issues between the two points of view:
He says the Smiths left the restaurant around 2130, (9.30pm) had a very quick round of drinks at Kelly’s Bar, walked back the short distance along the road and up the stairway to the Junction near the sighting, arriving there between 2155 and 2200 where a few of them saw a man carrying a child.
He argues that this was Gerry McCann, carrying the fresh corpse of his daughter Madeleine, or perhaps another unspecified male Tapas member carrying a living decoy child for purposes also unspecified.
He further argues that SmithMan then hid or disposed of the body before returning to the Tapas restaurant and sitting down before the alarm was first raised.
He is dismissive of discussions about location of disposal or hiding, distance to be travelled in both directions, and some have even sought to explain anomalies in timings by suggesting scenarios where SmithGerryMan sprinted over an urban obstacle or ‘parcour’ course in the dark jumping over a concealed back gate into the OC pool compound.
The scenario of the Tapas father with the decoy is quietly dropped.
To put this in context, the manifestly incorrect timings given independently by each of the two men in their statements – namely that they left the Dolphins restaurant at 2100 (9pm) – are studiously ignored, and only the statement by the 12 year old Aiofe giving the provably correct time of leaving Dolphins at 2130 (9:30pm) is referred to.
REF 4
He does of course, like everyone else, have access to the timing on the credit card Dolphins payment of 21:27.40
The fact that both adults agree and say 2100 and are therefore BOTH half an hour out with their timings is ignored completely.
But it is crucial because both men independently state that they were in the Bar for nearly an hour – they say they went in shortly after NINE and came out a few minutes before TEN and had “some drinks” or “a few drinks”. They do NOT say they were there for a mere 15 minutes [and only one quick drink !] as would be required if they had to get the entire extended family to the ‘sighting junction’ by 2155.
This is a huge discrepancy and to fail to explain it, or worse to ignore it, is very revealing.
The question why they would not have one last quick drink at the dining table in Dolphins instead of herding the entire extended family to somewhere else very close by for 15 minutes is never raised and is therefore left unanswered.
In a nutshell :
The Dolphins bill is timed at 2127
The first Kelly’s bill is timed at 2139. 11 minutes later
Even if they had only one round of drinks and not “a few”, or “some”, this allows them only another 11 minutes to drink up before they have to leave at 2150 and climb the stairs to be in their respective positions at the sighting venue at 2155.
11 minutes is rather different from the 50+ minutes derived from both men’s independent estimates of ‘just after 9 to just before 10’ [paraphrased]
I do not think these positions can be easily reconciled. One or other must be wrong.
He then goes on to ‘explain’ that because one of the women was unwell, they diluted the wine with lemonade. Evidence for this ? There is one SPRITE on the bill, and Peter Smith says his wife was “pregnant and somewhat ill”.
There is of course no evidence that the Sprite and the wine were mixed, and the fact that four adults nevertheless got through two bottles of Mateus - which is itself already a slightly sparkling or ‘petillant’ wine might then push up the per-person consumption of the other three adults slightly further.
[Note. The Dolphins bill shows Matteus. In 2007 only the traditional and well known Rosé was available. The lesser known Mateus Blanco was not introduced until 2014. Mateus Rosé has an ABV of 11% similar to Lambrusco and Prosecco and for the same reasons; it is semi-sweet so not all the sugars have been fermented out, hence also the ‘sparkle’. Champagne is around 12%]
REF 5
The exact relevance of the observation about the Sprite may also be questioned.
And then having decided to ignore – not explain and examine – the two men’s statements in favour of the 12 year old girl’s, he moves on.
He is clearly proud of his new ‘killer blow’ argument since he uses it twice.
I give both extracts, and have highlighted them in the Appendix for context
1 you think the town would have been in disarray and they would have realised that a child was missing by that time? You know as well as I do they left that bar at the time stated and arrived at the area approx 10pm the problem you have is that does not fit into Bernie Bullshitters claims, so you have created anything to detract from the Smiths sightings.
2 Bearing in mind the alarm is raised, it’s 10.30 according to you, and you fail to understand that a full scale search is now in flight [sic]. The alarm was raised 30 mins prior [sic] and you are telling us that the Smith's saw someone carrying a child, but NEVER saw anyone out searching for a missing child, and they NEVER bumped into anyone searching for a missing child? Or spoke to anyone searching for a missing child? Oblivious to the mayhem that was taking place in and around the OC
APP 1
Do you see what he has done ?
He is so determined to “prove” SmithGerryMan that he has ignored the few incontrovertible facts at our disposal.
The GNR logged the first call from the OC at 22:41.29s. eighteen and a half minutes to Eleven
Date shown in format 2007 05 03. Call lasting 53s. Time shown as 22h 41m 29s,
Second call 11 minutes later lasting 1min 02s. Timed at 22h 52m 39s.
REF. 6
The first two GNR officers arrived around 2310, to be followed over the next hours by more officers and dog units.
The determined ‘searching’ started long after this, only being fully organised and operational through the wider town by midnight, and continued up to 0400.
REF 7, See also REF 14
The Policia Judicaria (PJ) were not informed until after midnight – 00:10 4/5/7 – when the first PJ officers were sent to PdL
REF 8
Two OC waiters had been detailed by the OC’s own protocol for missing persons to walk along the beach, as the most obvious open and dangerous space to eliminate first, and then returned to be organised more professionally by the GNR.
REF 9 & REF 14
So to repeat in case readers have missed the point :–
The idea of large numbers of people searching the back streets where “a full scale search is now in flight [sic] ” and “the mayhem that was taking place in and around the OC“
by 2230 is pure invention. The GNR were not even TOLD until 10 minutes after that, and did not arrive until 40 minutes later.
By which time we may reasonably assume that the entire Smith family was safely back in their quarters and many or most of them soundly asleep.
“you are telling us that the Smith's saw someone carrying a child, but NEVER saw anyone out searching for a missing child, and they NEVER bumped into anyone searching for a missing child? Or spoke to anyone searching for a missing child? Oblivious to the mayhem that was taking place in and around the OC”
APP 1
Answer : Well YES. Because there was nobody searching that area at that time: they didn’t; they didn’t; they didn’t; and there wasn’t.
And the fact remains that despite there being well documented searches and Missing Person posters all over PdL in the next few days, it was not until 26th May - some 13 days later – that the Smiths made the first statements in which both Martin Smith and his son Peter independently said “it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.”
And we must never forget that Martin Smith and his wife remained in PdL for a further SIX days, leaving on Wednesday 9th, during which time it is inconceivable that they did not see posters, watch the news, Portuguese or international, observe police activity, see house to house enquiries, and become aware of the missing Person enquiry.
“Oblivious to the mayhem that was taking place in and around the OC” ?
It seems so. His statement is dated Sunday 26th May 2007.
Perhaps time for another quote from another visionary ? This time Aldous Huxley.
"It is man's intelligence that makes him so often behave more stupidly than the beasts. Man is impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic.” [My bold]
REF 10
But it does not end there. He grasps at a further straw in an attempt to plug the holes in his argument.
“AH but wait how do you analyse the FACT that they stayed in the Estrela da Luz complex, next to a school, which was across the road from the OC, and a place people would likely look for a missing child?
APP 1
The Smiths own an apartment in the Estrela de Luz complex. The number A1C seen in two of the statements is thought to be the Block and apartment number.
“Urban. Estrela da Luz, corresponding to A1C”
“Next to a school”. – there is a primary school, hence the name of the street in question Rua da Escola Primária. It is shown here
Whether this qualifies as “next to a school, which was across the road from the OC” seems to stretch normal English usage.
However the statement “a place people would likely look for a missing child..” by which I assume he means the school, is less obvious.
Why would you look in a school, surrounded with chain link fencing and a locked gate at 10:30pm for a child which had been “abducted” or – since they were searching locally – “had wandered off” ? Madeleine was 3 years old. She would not even have known the school was there.
Why is it ‘likely’ that people would look there, as opposed to the immediate area around the OC, the pool – which they did; the OC gardens – which they did; and only extend the search in accordance with normal protocols to a wider area having eliminated the immediate vicinity and more dangerous and urgent spots like the beach – which they did ?
I confess I find this slightly baffling, unless he actually means that the Estrela da Luz urbanisation itself was a natural and more obvious search area in the first minutes after the alarm’s having been raised . . . in which case I find it even more so.
I am not convinced this adds to the debate.
- * * * *
Some of the OC staff finished work and went on to bars and then home without being aware of anything happening at all
REF 11
Others joined the search when they finished the other duties, but much later
Gustavo Compos for example worked at the Millennium Restaurant
When his shift ended [2400] he joined in the search with his colleague Nelson. He searched until 03.00 AM.
REF 12
* * * * * * * * *
The 9:30pm alarm question
There has been a suggestion that the Alarm was in fact raised anything up to 30 minutes earlier than the 10pm/ 2200 which is part of the official and most widely accepted version. This is based on several statements including some from the waiters at the tapas bar.
The relevant statements may all be found in the PJ files
REF 13
The suggestion dates back a long way, and was repeated on the CMoMM forum in 2010, having been posted on MM long before that. Now, some fifteen years later we know and have begun to understand a lot more.
The post and other similar ones are included in Appendix 2
APP 2
I examine a few of the more glaring ‘anomalies’
1 “21.30/22.00 Helder (OC reception) is informed by Tapas staff member that child is missing.”
But when we look at Helder Luis’ statement we find a clear cross reference, which we CAN check
“on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 [2130] and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. . .
That he immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child’s father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.”
He made the two phone calls.
We know that the first call was made at 2241 and the second at 2252
Therefore his estimate of the time as between 2130 and 2200 is simply wrong, by over 40 minutes. Every thing else EXCEPT the time is reliable.
REF 14
2 “22.28 John Hill (MW Manager) says he was informed by LJ (Creche Manager) that child missing.”
Hill’s statement includes one confirmed time check
“he knew of these facts by means of a phone call from Lindsay, head of the child care service, who told him about a female child staying at the resort who had disappeared. This phone call was made to the deponent's mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007.
But then he goes on
The deponent thinks that the GNR arrived at the scene at about 22.45, however in a conversation several weeks later, he heard someone say, he doesn't remember whom, that they had arrived at about 23.30, but as he was so busy he declared that he had no notion of the passage of time….’
We know from other sources that the GNR arrived about 2310, and that at 2252 both he and Gerry McCann were in the reception at the time of the second phone call (See above), so Hill’s inclusion in this statement of having “no notion of the passage of time” is correct, refreshingly honest and shows a remarkable self-awareness. It probably applies to many others who simply did not realise how our impression of lapsed time can become distorted by events.
REF 15
3 “22.15/22.30 VMS arrives at reception to find GNR have arrived and are taking statement from GM.”
Victor Santos’ statement tells another story about the lack of accuracy in the timings being given. We can cross check TWO timings, and see that both are wrong
“With regard to the date of the disappearance on 3rd May 2007, he remembers that at 22.00/22.15 he received a phone call from the reception, from receptionist Helder, who told him that John Hill was extremely agitated as a child had disappeared and that the GNR had been contacted but had not arrived yet . . .
When he arrived at the scene about 10 to 15 minutes later, he immediately went to the reception where the GNR were present, taking a statement from the girl's father.”
The call from Helder cannot have been before the ending of the call to the GNR at 2143, and his arrival at reception to find the GNR talking details from GM cannot have been before 2310
REF 16
4 “23.00 (approx) Roque (GNR) + colleague state they are first officers to arrive.”
In his third statement Roque says this. (Edited)
“on the night of 3rd May, when he was on patrol with his colleague Costa in Odiaxere, he received a radio communication from the central telling him to go to P da L, specifically to the reception of OC resort where the father of a girl who had disappeared was. When they were on their way to this place and had reached the zone of Valverde he received another communication saying that this was a very young girl and that her father had called again.
When they arrived, they saw the girl's father, …
After hearing about the circumstances of the disappearance …He then went to the apartment, accompanied by his colleague, the father …”
Google Maps gives Odiaxere village as being 19/20 minutes drive from PdL, but Odiaxere is also shown as the municipality and it is unclear where they actually were at 2244 when the radio message was sent. It hardly matters, since their arrival will inevitably have been shortly after 2300, which fits perfectly into our previous calculations
REF 17
5 A waiter fluent in both languages gave an initial statement in which he states 2200, and then a longer and more detailed rogatory in which he introduced the 2130 timing. The rogatory statement was taken in Leicester (UK) on 23/4/8 almost a year after his first statement on 5/5/7 in which he had said 2200, and it is noted that on this second occasion he specifically includes the words, “do not remember with certainty”.
REF 18
6 One of the colleague waiters he references in his rogatory is clear that R.O’Brien did not return to the table until about 2145, (which is in accordance with both the official and the the widely accepted time line) lending support to the approximate 2200 alarm time.
REF 19
7 Most others however are very clear that the activity took place at and after 2200, and that the initial searches from 2230 onwards were – very obviously – round the pool, gardens, and apartments zone, with no mention of deeper into the town.
REF 20
The evidence therefore points to a very (suspiciously ?) accurate timing of ca. 2200/2205 for the initial alarm’s being raised, 2241 for the first phone call to the GNR, ca.2310 for the arrival of the GNR, and the first properly organised searches of the area some time after that, with Gerry McCann present in the Tapas bar throughout the time relevant to this discussion.
None of which supports the contention of Antonio Lopez Ribeiro that the timeline is infinitely flexible, nor I believe justifies his abuse and anger.
* * * * * * *
The answer to the underlying question Qui Bono = Who benefits from this aggressive and abusive defence of SmithMan ? is not easy to discern.
Smithman acolytes are not protecting the McCanns. Far from it. They are implicating Gerry either directly in disposing of the corpse of his recently deceased daughter on the evening of 3/5/7, or of being involved in a convoluted conspiracy with one or more of the other three male, and perhaps the female Tapas members using one of their own children as a decoy whilst something else is happening to Madeleine or her corpse. These are serious and far reaching allegations, which go beyond what is already known or has been suggested thus far.
Again, as so often, none of this is ever spelled out. No fuller scenario is ever articulated and set before us, and therefore can never be analysed by critics. And from the statements they do put forward it seems impossible to imagine a coherent one for ourselves.
This leaves us with only the abuse, aggression, disparagement and barely concealed hatred.
Which is, frankly, not helpful.
16/4/25
