Just moving these here instead of the comments section so that Textusa can't claim she hasn't seen them
In particular, she has been peddling these lies about Smithman and the Smith family for years. So I am going to say it again - there was no zig-zagging, there was no 'stopping'.
She even had the nerve to blame it on Gemma O'Doherty, when Textusa made the claim in 2013, in this passage of bullshit:
I have now passed Smith 1 by 18 m (20 yds or 0.8 tennis courts), am at Smith 2, heading towards Smith 3.
Here I do the most amazing thing for someone with a dead body avoiding contact: I stop!!
Sky News, April 07 2008:
“Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”
I stopped long enough and with near enough proximity to be asked by a total stranger if the dead bodyof the child I'm holding was asleep. Isn't that just absurdly surreal?
Absolute bollocks. No mention by anyone of him stopping. She's a liar.
A reply from Idiot Textusa
The photos on these pages show unequivocally that none of the 3 locations pointed by the Smiths are in the middle of the street. All 3 are on the sidewalks.The three locations are of the witnesses, not of Smithman, and are clearly labelled as such. In fact, Martin Smith actually said he was in the middle of the road, as was Smithman. Peter Smith also described Smithman as being in the middle of the road, so your claims are bollocks
As pointed out, these are the locations of the witnesses, not Smithman, fuckwit
Uniting these 3 points, one does not obtain a straight line.
You appear to have deliberately omitted the next line, where he says :
Martin Smith says “States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent.”
'' The witness was also walking in the same place."
ie, the middle of the street. It is these deliberate omissions which prove that you lie to your readers
Peter was on the left pavement. Smithman, as he states, passed him on the right, in the middle of the street
Peter Smith says “States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.”
It is also perfectly evident in the photos to which you refer that there is no indication that Smithman 'zig-zagged'
Read my previous comment.
To go from the right side of the street one has to pass the middle of the road. It’s in the middle of the road that Martin Smith sees Smithman first. That doesn’t mean he was walking in a straight line down the middle of the road but that he was passing the middle of the road when crossing it.
Really, Maria? Just grow up
As you seem to be a little slow, let us explain what happened as one would explain to a 4 yr old.
No, Peter did not say anything of the kind. This is what Peter said
Once upon a time, this man called Smithman was coming down on this street when a nice family was walking up it.
Walking in front of this family was Peter. Peter sees Smithman coming towards him walking on the sidewalk on his right and this is why he says “the individual was coming down to his right”.
"At the beginning of this road, he saw an individual carrying a child. This individual was walking normally although with somewhat quick steps as he was walking downwards. He appeared normal to the witness, as if this were father and daughter. He adds that this individual was coming down the street, in an opposite direction to that of the witness and his companions."
Nothing at all about seeing Smithman on the sidewalk on his right. You have simply made that up
Ah, clearly you don't. The arrow indicated Peter's position, with Smithman passing him on the right, in the middle of the street, as he describes
Peter Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the right side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.
Nonsense. Peter does not describe him crossing to the other side of the street, you are simply making that up
After crossing with Peter, Smithman decides to cross the street, and so goes around Peter and crosses it to the other side and that’s why Peter says “going around the deponent in the middle of the street”. The deponent a word that the nice police used for reasons you will understand when you grow up but means Peter. What Peter is saying is that Smithman goes around him into the middle of the street when he crosses it.
In fact, the files actually say :
"He also says that when he passed the individual, the individual was descending to his right, and walked past the witness in the middle of the street, given that at that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent."
So Peter has him in the middle of the road, and so, a few yards away, does Martin. No mention whatsoever of his changing sides or zig-zagging, just walking normally in the middle of the street.
Behind Peter was walking Peter’s dad, Martin. When Smithman is crossing the street is when dad Martin first sees Smithman, who is in the middle of the street crossing after going around Peter and that’s why Martin says “he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street”
Actually, it shows an M, and in his statement he says he was walking in the middle of the street, same as Smithman
Martin Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the left side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.
We shall ignore your childish nonsense and reiterate that both men described Smithman as walking in the middle of the street, having passed Peter by Peter's right, and AT NO POINT does anyone mention him stopping, which was the other lie you have conveniently forgotten to address.
Hope you now understand the meaning of “middle of the street” when both Peter and Martin Smith used it.
About the photos and the 3 locations, please do ask a grown-up to show you what an arrow represents.
You are a liar and a bullshitter, Maria. You have been spinning this tale for 5 years and it is absolute cobblers
So come on - are you going to retract this ridiculous claim of Smithman zig-zagging, and the even more ridiculous claim that he stopped, which it seems you now want to pretend you never said?
The idiot Textusa has posted a long reply, about whether Mary Smith spoke to Smithman or not, which frankly is immaterial. The claim Textusa made back in 2013, and has been making ever since, is that the man stopped.
This is what she is now saying:
Finally, to be clear, making a comment towards a total stranger and EXPECTING a response indicates that the man has stopped.This is complete bollocks. Regardless of whether Mary Smith spoke to him or not, there is no indication whatsoever that he had stopped or that he stopped at any point. She's just a liar, simple as. Frankly, it is insulting her readers to expect them to swallow this nonsense.