I was to back down and not say anything. Now looking back I wish I had stood my ground and argued my point then perhaps back in those days I would seen the light a lot earlier.
The incident I am referring to is a group conversation, when the dog videos came out back in 2008. Everyone was commenting and posting on the open forum about “How right the dogs were”, “How guilty it made the McCanns look” along with other comments. And I was talking about those videos to a group of people on MSN or Skype and I said “there is something not right here”.
Anyway the conversation and what I was trying to say was simple, “Why if you were guilty of such a heinous crime would one person dispose of the offending clothing and let another person keep their clothing”. To me it just did not make sense.
My god I thought World War III had just erupted without warning, I was told “The dogs are not wrong”, I was being questioned even back then if I was turning “pro”. I made a simple observation, and said something objective, I never committed a crime. But there I was left feeling best to keep quiet and say nowt.
Looking back I wish I had the courage, back then, to have argued that point. Because the more I think about it the more I am convinced that there is a very plausible explanation as to the reasons why Eddie marked those clothes. And it was not due to the fact those clothes came into contact with a dead body.
Now it is being taken as fact by some of the anti-McCann personas who say that it is definitely Gerry McCann who was in fact carrying a child around Praia da Luz that night. They base their argument on two pieces of info.
One bit of that info is that Martin Smith states that when he saw Gerry McCann descending from the plane on his way back to Rothley, after being made an arguido, and the way he carrying one of the twins down the plane steps. And how it reminded him of the man they saw that night in Praia da Luz.
The other piece of info comes from another member of the Smith family who stated that the person they saw was wearing beige trousers with buttons down them.
Aoife Smith states in her statement the following:
— His trousers were smooth “rights” along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
And she is only 60% certain that the child that the man was carrying was in fact Madeleine she states in her statement:
She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
The button detail can be seen clearer in this picture and now the twitter world has erupted and one member has produced a photo of Gerry McCann wearing the same sort of trousers along with the relevant section of the statement imposed on the photo plus highlighting the button detail of those trousers.
Many will now state it as fact now, that it has to be Gerry McCann that the Smith family saw, even though it has been proven, that Gerry McCann was in another place at the time this family saw this person carrying a child.
Facts never get in the way of a good theory. Even if the Police have ruled it out. Because you see these people are convinced that the Police have been lied to. So if Gerry McCann was where the Police said he was and various witnesses can vouch for that fact, then for Gerry McCann to be at the place where the Smith’s saw him the Smith family must have got the time totally wrong.
But even so Martin Smith states in an additional statement the following:
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information.
Based on the evidence in the files, I am of the firm conclusion it was another man that the Smith family saw that night. Could it mean that the man carrying the child just never came forward for a valid reason? Perhaps he doesn’t recognise himself from those pictures, perhaps he thought he was in that vicinity at an earlier time so has not come forward, perhaps he is the abductor and therefore would not come forward.
But irrespective of whether those trousers were a fashion statement or whether they were popular or not, it still does not stop some people showing exactly how stupid they can be with their tweets. Like the person who did the photo on the left, with comment number 1:
JillyCL 31 days ago
#McCann I’m trying to discover how common trousers with button trim are. Please tweet if you have a pair like these.
And then comment number 2:
JillyCL 31 days ago
Well, it’s 3 hours since I asked, so I guess no-one who follows me has a pair of trousers like Gerry #McCann
And her third comment about the trousers:
JillyCL 30 days ago
@InspClauseau Did the Amsterdam man have an unusual pair of trousers just like the ‘abductor’ and/or Gerry #McCann?
The only problem I see, apart from the Police confirming it was not Gerry because he was somewhere else at the time, is the fact that if Gerry McCann was carrying a deceased child around PDL, like JillyCL is so convinced of, surely the dogs would have picked up the scent from his clothes. Because it looks to me as if he was still wearing those trousers without thinking of the implications and had not disposed of them.
And surely the Police would have questioned where certain articles were, especially if they had been monitoring the clothes they were wearing and compared that with the clothes they removed from the villa.