The Smith sighting has surfaced again

This could get interesting.....

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/local-family-may-be-key-to-new-maddie-probe-3049694.html

ali1966 wrote:This could get interesting.....

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/local-family-may-be-key-to-new-maddie-probe-3049694.html

Thanks ali1966. Today's date and talking about "murder squad detectives."

Same article from Wednesday June 06 2007

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/frontpage/local-family-may-have-seen-missing-maddy-700749.html

Local family may have seen missing Maddy Drogheda Independent

By Angela McCormick
Wednesday June 06 2007

A DROGHEDA family may have been the last people to see abducted four-year-old Madeleine McCann in Portugal.

The family isunderstood to have seen a child in the arms of a man on the night and at the time Madeleine was taken from her parents' apartments in Praia Da Luz.

They have reported the matter and recently gave statements to the Portuguese police.

The Portuguese police have asked the family not to speak to the press in case they compromise their investigations.

The family declined to give any details to the Drogheda Independent.

Portuguese police are convinced that the child, who vanished during a family holiday in the Algarve on May 3, was abducted.

A number of Drogheda-based families holiday in the nearby Estrela Da Luz apartments, part of a complex built by Drogheda man Gerry Fagan of Oceanico Developments.

'Estrela Da Luz is just around the corner from Praia Da Luz. Loads of Drogheda people go there. It is an absolute paradise,' said Jem O'Neill, a regular visitor

It says at the end Madeleine will be 9 shortly, so it is recent.

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/local-family-may-be-key-to-new-maddie-probe-3049694.html

It also says (at the very end) that the McCanns want the case to be re-opened. I wonder if they managed to actually print that with straight faces.

Iris wrote:It also says (at the very end) that the McCanns want the case to be re-opened. I wonder if they managed to actually print that with straight faces.

Yeh they're definitely having a larf. It's got to be new.... the Mc's are using the 'R' word!!

So, let's see what we've got in the past day or so: Smith sighting resurfaces, McCanns are told to return the books and Isabel Duarte is going ahead with a case without the backing of the Public Ministry. Interesting times indeed!

However, the article does not mention that Mr. Smith was 60-80% sure that the man they saw was Gerry McCann.

so smith saw someone at 10pm isnt that giving gerry a alabi ?

cass wrote:so smith saw someone at 10pm isnt that giving gerry a alabi ?

Nope, I think the opposite. If Smith and family
positively identify Gaz as the 'man with child'
he will have a lot of explaining to do.

marxman yes indeed prob i have these so called witnesses should not be known to the mcanns , there was talk in the early days that there was some very good witnesses o-c staff and they are not known at all thats the way it should be imo . i hope you are right though , also wasnt it said that the smith family was contacted my someone close to the mcanns ?

cass wrote:marxman yes indeed prob i have these so called witnesses should not be known to the mcanns , there was talk in the early days that there was some very good witnesses o-c staff and they are not known at all thats the way it should be imo . i hope you are right though , also wasnt it said that the smith family was contacted my someone close to the mcanns ?

Yes, Kennedy their financial backer 'payed'
the Smiths a visit but I don't believe it had
the desired result as Team Mccann wanted.
I truely believe that the Smiths are 'hostile'
witnesses which the Mccanns ignored but
they were always in the background holding
an 'ace in the hole.'
On 3rd May 07 there was two reported sightings,
One of a man and child, the other with man
with a bundle. Logic dictates that you investigate
both but pay particular attention to man with
child. However, the Mccanns totally ignored the
most obvious and held up the bundleman as
the culprit without illiminating childman!
This, must rank as a big 'red flag' which needs
further investigating.
Moreover, why has the man that the Smiths
encountered not came forward if it wasn't Gerry?

marxman wrote:

cass wrote:marxman yes indeed prob i have these so called witnesses should not be known to the mcanns , there was talk in the early days that there was some very good witnesses o-c staff and they are not known at all thats the way it should be imo . i hope you are right though , also wasnt it said that the smith family was contacted my someone close to the mcanns ?

Yes, Kennedy their financial backer 'payed'
the Smiths a visit but I don't believe it had
the desired result as Team Mccann wanted.
I truely believe that the Smiths are 'hostile'
witnesses which the Mccanns ignored but
they were always in the background holding
an 'ace in the hole.'
On 3rd May 07 there was two reported sightings,
One of a man and child, the other with man
with a bundle. Logic dictates that you investigate
both but pay particular attention to man with
child. However, the Mccanns totally ignored the
most obvious and held up the bundleman as
the culprit without illiminating childman!
This, must rank as a big 'red flag' which needs
further investigating.
Moreover, why has the man that the Smiths
encountered not came forward if it wasn't Gerry?

Very well put and exactly my thoughts.

You'd think if Metodo 3 had been any good, they would have found a stoolie, about the same height and build as Mister Gerry, to "come forward" and say, that was myself that was spotted by Mr Smith. I was carrying my child home and she was asleep. There you go, Smith sighting "sorted". Mind you, that might have actually involved paying out money to somebody to tell lies. But then again....

Iris wrote:You'd think if Metodo 3 had been any good, they would have found a stoolie, about the same height and build as Mister Gerry, to "come forward" and say, that was myself that was spotted by Mr Smith. I was carrying my child home and she was asleep. There you go, Smith sighting "sorted". Mind you, that might have actually involved paying out money to somebody to tell lies. But then again....

Hi Iris, believe it or not, that is a very good
observation! Why did Metodo3 not invent a
stand-in? Not unless, they knew that it was
indeed Gerry, the Smiths knew it was Gerry,
so therefore a suitable look-alike would not
work, so it didn't happen. This by failing to
provide a dummy supports it being Gerry....
.... If you know what I mean?

Can anybody remember if the Smith sighting was shown on that Channel 4 'documentary'. The reconstruction one. Thanks

there was, as far as i recall, a half hearted reference to it. i cannot remember the exact details, but there was definately a reference of some sort.

marxman wrote:

Iris wrote:You'd think if Metodo 3 had been any good, they would have found a stoolie, about the same height and build as Mister Gerry, to "come forward" and say, that was myself that was spotted by Mr Smith. I was carrying my child home and she was asleep. There you go, Smith sighting "sorted". Mind you, that might have actually involved paying out money to somebody to tell lies. But then again....

Hi Iris, believe it or not, that is a very good
observation! Why did Metodo3 not invent a
stand-in? Not unless, they knew that it was
indeed Gerry, the Smiths knew it was Gerry,
so therefore a suitable look-alike would not
work, so it didn't happen. This by failing to
provide a dummy supports it being Gerry....
.... If you know what I mean?

interesting use of the word dummy

mossman wrote:there was, as far as i recall, a half hearted reference to it. i cannot remember the exact details, but there was definately a reference of some sort.

Thanks. So there wasn't an actor playing the part of the person the Smith#s saw. Hmmm.

I think yhis report has been copied.


At the time the family thought little about it and headed for home the following day but later images from Portugal surrounding the case triggered their memories of the chance meeting"

Iv"e seen that sentence in another report and mentioned at the time that the Smiths had a ticket to fly home on 9th May....six days after Madeleine
disappeared!!!!!!!

Panda wrote:
I think yhis report has been copied.


At the time the family thought little about it and headed for home the following day but later images from Portugal surrounding the case triggered their memories of the chance meeting"

Iv"e seen that sentence in another report and mentioned at the time that the Smiths had a ticket to fly home on 9th May....six days after Madeleine
disappeared!!!!!!!

No the smiths were definatley booked to go home on the 9th of may - mr and mrs that is. there was another one of the party booked to go home the following day. this is in one of the statements and it was a reason that they were going home at that time, they did not stay for another drink in the bar. the pregnant lady was not feeling well and i think it was mr smith's son who was going home the next day.

Annabel wrote:http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2012/03/smith-sighting-descriptions-and-gerry.html

Morning Annabel......thanks.

I only read the first paragraph and that was enought for me. :grin




— The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

The lighting was bad , so much so that Mr smith could not remember whether the guy wore glasses, or had a beard or moustache...yet could remember
the child,s eyes being closed and her wearing pyjamas.!!!!!

Panda wrote:

Annabel wrote:http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2012/03/smith-sighting-descriptions-and-gerry.html

Morning Annabel......thanks.

I only read the first paragraph and that was enought for me. :grin




— The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad.

The lighting was bad , so much so that Mr smith could not remember whether the guy wore glasses, or had a beard or moustache...yet could remember
the child,s eyes being closed and her wearing pyjamas.!!!!!

It's not fair to deduce from :"He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache" that the testimony is false. Very probably he answered a classic question of the police in such a case :"Do you remember if the man had glasses,beard or moustache ?", by "I don't remember that".
I say that because when I was involved in England in a criminal fire on a ferry, it's exactly the type of questions that were asked by the police. They even asked if a man I had seen before the crime was wearing a hat. The 3rd time they asked the question, I was convinced that the man was , indeed wearing a hat, even if it was not true!