The Smith sighting has surfaced again

MaryB wrote:

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.

IIRC all they did was push Tanners 'sighting' and mention that another holidaymaker saw someone carrying a child too that night.....

Irish couple to help new Maddie probe

AN Irish family holidaying in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine McCann went missing say they will "fully cooperate" with any new police probe.

Full article:
http://www.herald.ie/news/irish-couple-to-help-new-maddie-probe-3054368.html

Thanks almostgothic, see how the Press manipulate the News? The Smiths were interviewed twice by the PJ and Garda. SY have been investigating the Files for 10 months but made no move to contact the Smiths. Had SY considered their evidence vital , they would have interviewed them by now.

Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks

Well thats it then.... if the UK Papers say it, then it has to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!!!!!!


Strange how we are having negatives from the papers all of a sudden.

If Smith could recall having noticed that the child's eyes were closed and that she was wearing pyjamas but could not recall whether the man holding the child had a moustache or wore glasses, is it not possible that if his focus of attention was on the child and not the man carrying her, that details of the carrier would not be as sharply imprinted on his memory?

margaret wrote:

MaryB wrote:

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.

IIRC all they did was push Tanners 'sighting' and mention that another holidaymaker saw someone carrying a child too that night.....

Hello Margaret. They did show it, I remember it well because they showed a group of people who were supposed to be the Smiths although they did not name them. Then they showed a man walking past them with a child in his arms but carrying the child across both arms just as Jane Tanner had described and not as the Smiths described. They actually made it look like a continuation of Tanner's sighting.

I remember it so well because I was fuming about it!

Smith sighting 6.38 onwards

Wintabells wrote:

Smith sighting 6.38 onwards

Thank you for that wintabells I knew I had seen it.

T4two wrote:If Smith could recall having noticed that the child's eyes were closed and that she was wearing pyjamas but could not recall whether the man holding the child had a moustache or wore glasses, is it not possible that if his focus of attention was on the child and not the man carrying her, that details of the carrier would not be as sharply imprinted on his memory?

Thats exactly correct. Everyone always looks at kids, especially if they have kids to make some sort of 'ahhh......' comment.
If he recalls that detail of the child, and that the child was held in a peculiar manner then it makes sense he would not recall the carrier.

Loopdaloop wrote:

T4two wrote:If Smith could recall having noticed that the child's eyes were closed and that she was wearing pyjamas but could not recall whether the man holding the child had a moustache or wore glasses, is it not possible that if his focus of attention was on the child and not the man carrying her, that details of the carrier would not be as sharply imprinted on his memory?

Thats exactly correct. Everyone always looks at kids, especially if they have kids to make some sort of 'ahhh......' comment.
If he recalls that detail of the child, and that the child was held in a peculiar manner then it makes sense he would not recall the carrier.

I not only remember the kids I see around, but not necessarily their parents, I could also describe the two gorgeous Springer Spaniels I see regularly but not the man or woman who regularly accompany them!

Oh, I just assumed that they "steered clear" of the Smith sighting on purpose. I thought of it as a "double sighting" just to be sure in case the Tanner one was rubbished. So drawing attention to it by TM too soon would negate it's usefulness. But maybe I am wrong.

Smith said that it was seeing GM on TV carrying a child that reminded him of what he had seen in Praia de Luz. So I decided to find a photo of GM arriving in England. Obviously Smith was watching a moving picture and it's quite plausible that the way GM was holding the child and moving prompted something in his memory. What I'm starting to find a bit difficult to understand though, is why Smith is so vague about the description of the person carrying the child, since the way GM is carrying the child in this picture puts his face right up next to the child, making it very difficult to look at the child without looking at the face of the carrier as well. The second point which springs to mind is that I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how he could have seen that the child's eyes were closed i.e. that it was asleep, if as he says, the person that could have been GM was carrying the child in this position.

T4two wrote:Smith said that it was seeing GM on TV carrying a child that reminded him of what he had seen in Praia de Luz. So I decided to find a photo of GM arriving in England. Obviously Smith was watching a moving picture and it's quite plausible that the way GM was holding the child and moving prompted something in his memory. What I'm starting to find a bit difficult to understand though, is why Smith is so vague about the description of the person carrying the child, since the way GM is carrying the child in this picture puts his face right up next to the child, making it very difficult to look at the child without looking at the face of the carrier as well. The second point which springs to mind is that I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how he could have seen that the child's eyes were closed i.e. that it was asleep, if as he says, the person that could have been GM was carrying the child in this position.

That is an interesting point.
Could he have glanced backwards thinking 'Hes in a rush'?



or could the head have been droopy so he assumed it was asleep....

Either way it must have been gerry as if it wasn't someone would have come forward!!!

I suppose it depends which side he was carrying Maddie though



as she would have been bigger than Sean, and if her head was drooping off the other side perhaps he could have seen?




Come to think of it Jane Tanners description of the way her alleged abductor was carrying a child was strange.


According to all sources MM was a light sleeper and would wake up easily and run around!
Yet that position of the 'alleged' child with the mystery sighting shows a child almost sleeping ?

Loopdaloop wrote:

T4two wrote:Smith said that it was seeing GM on TV carrying a child that reminded him of what he had seen in Praia de Luz. So I decided to find a photo of GM arriving in England. Obviously Smith was watching a moving picture and it's quite plausible that the way GM was holding the child and moving prompted something in his memory. What I'm starting to find a bit difficult to understand though, is why Smith is so vague about the description of the person carrying the child, since the way GM is carrying the child in this picture puts his face right up next to the child, making it very difficult to look at the child without looking at the face of the carrier as well. The second point which springs to mind is that I'm finding it rather difficult to understand how he could have seen that the child's eyes were closed i.e. that it was asleep, if as he says, the person that could have been GM was carrying the child in this position.

That is an interesting point.
Could he have glanced backwards thinking 'Hes in a rush'?



or could the head have been droopy so he assumed it was asleep....

Either way it must have been gerry as if it wasn't someone would have come forward!!!

Hmmm... in his statement he does not say rhat he walked past and that it was when he looked back which was when he saw that the child's eyes were closed.
There is another alternative. If nobody had been carrying a child, then nobody would have come forward.

T4two wrote:
If nobody had been carrying a child, then nobody would have come forward.

Which ironically could also be the reason why the Mccann's were so categorical (According to Pat Brown) that that person the smiths saw, was not the person they were looking for... as they could have known that there was no chance that could have been them.

However, if it was no chance that it could have been them and they were on the cover up why wouldn't they jump on it as another possible option?
Which leads me back to suppose that it was Gerry being caught out... Unless the smiths weren't accurate on the day!

PortugalDiário: The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

Gonçalo Amaral: 'It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further

Loopdaloop wrote:

T4two wrote:
If nobody had been carrying a child, then nobody would have come forward.

Which ironically could also be the reason why the Mccann's were so categorical (According to Pat Brown) that that person the smiths saw, was not the person they were looking for... as they could have known that there was no chance that could have been them.

However, if it was no chance that it could have been them and they were on the cover up why wouldn't they jump on it as another possible option?
Which leads me back to suppose that it was Gerry being caught out... Unless the smiths weren't accurate on the day!

We have a tendency to try to make everything fit a picture of events which we have formed in our own minds and I am just as guilty of this as the next person, however as far as the alleged sighting by Mr. Smith is concerned, the more I consider it from different angles, the more some things do not ring entirely true. He did not report this event on the day or indeed anywhere near the day, but far later. It was only allegedly after seeing GM arrive back in England holding a child in a particular way that prompted his memory and his testimony that it could have been GM. Yet in his original statement he was certain that it was not Robert Murat. So Smith is saying that he is certain that it was not Murat but he is not certain that it wasn't GM. Looking at the picture of GM carrying the child I find nothing unusual about it whatsoever. That is the way most adults carry small children. Bearing in mind what I have already posted concerning the focal point of the child and GM's face and the fact that Smith's testimony does not explicitly mention that he turned to look after the carrier had passed him by, then I have to come to the conclusion that the veracity of Smith's alleged sighting is far from 100% certain. It is after all conceivable that Smith, as part of the Luz Irish holiday apartment scene of which Murat, being in the property business is probably an honorary member, knew Murat rather better than he intimated in his statement. Perhaps the statement is an alibi for Murat, especially as the possibility that it could have been GM was only brought into play after Smith had seen the McCanns arriving back in England to celebrity treatment. Maybe that made him flip out and decide to cover his mate who was still in Portugal but, that is something the police would of course have to investigate.

http://www.herald.ie/news/irish-couple-to-help-new-maddie-probe-3054368.html

Irish couple to help new Maddie probe


By Niall O'Connor

Monday March 19 2012

AN Irish family holidaying in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on the night Madeleine McCann went missing say they will "fully cooperate" with any new police probe.

Louth couple Martin and Mary Smith were quizzed by investigators after they claimed to have seen a man carrying a young child through the town on the night of the May 3, 2007.

Madeleine was almost four years old when she vanished from her bed in her parents' apartment at the Ocean Club holiday resort in Praia da Luz between 9.35pm and 10pm on May 3, 2007.

Despite a massive police investigation and huge publicity worldwide, she has not been found. However it has now emerged that a group of Portuguese detectives have been appointed to carry out a fresh review of the investigation.

Now, the Irish couple who were interviewed by police following the girl's disappearance are bracing themselves to be reinterviewed.

Reports in British newspapers have claimed Scotland Yard officers will approach the Smith family in the coming weeks as they attempt to construct a photofit on the prime suspect.

Tragedy

Mary Smith told the Herald today that the family still sees Madeleine story as a "terrible tragedy" and that they will co-operate fully with investigators.

"At this point we just don't know whether we will be called but of course we will cooperate fully. Madeleine's disappearance was just a terrible tragedy," she added.

"We have not been contacted by police yet and we will wait for their instructions," she added.

Police reports state that Mary and Martin left Kelly's Bar in the resort at approximately 10pm when they passed a male they said was carrying a young girl who was barefoot.

hnews@herald.ie

- Niall O'Connor

I still find it odd that Gerry was walking in the middle of the street heading towards the Smiths. There is a foothpath on both sides of the street, close to the houses and buildings. Why not use that if he didn't want to be seen. If I don't want to be noticed, I would never walk in the middle of the street.

Christine wrote:I still find it odd that Gerry was walking in the middle of the street heading towards the Smiths. There is a foothpath on both sides of the street, close to the houses and buildings. Why not use that if he didn't want to be seen. If I don't want to be noticed, I would never walk in the middle of the street.

Morning Christine, I posted this here very early this morning:-

PortugalDiário: The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

Gonçalo Amaral: 'It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further"

this sighting was one i always believed in and never questioned, in particular because of the mccanns reluctance to place any great emphasis on it.

then discussions on some threads here made me question it. i suppose what really jumped out at me was the fact that it states so definately it was not robert murat. then i got to thinking well he cleared murat in his first statement, so why make the second one, unless i am mistaken.

then i thought about it again and decided i believe mr smith.

i think a lot of what has been said here really goes to prove how important reconstructions are. when we speak we really give a synopsis of what we did and saw, we do not explain in any great detail how we did something or why we saw something. mr smith was never directly asked to give a slow motion account of how he looked or if he looked back at the man and child. so it is possible with a reconstruction it would show exactly what he did. his statement gives a far amount of detail but specific questions do not seem to have been asked of him, therefore they were never answered.

his second statement says he had been visited by kennedy. so clearly kennedy's visit had no effect on him,he went on to point the finger almost directly at gerry mccann. why would this be ? unless kennedy was trying to encourage him to imply it might have been murat, but then murat would want to be a very good friend for smith to help him with a false statement and point directly at gerry mccann, surely ?

he may not necessarily have thought a man carrying a child with a blanket was strange, he was a regular visitor there and from other statements it would appear this to have been a relatively normal night time activity for the resort. it may not have been the first thing he thought of when he heard about madeleine's disappearance.

why did smith need to make the second statement if he were not above board so to speak. i would also love to know where mrs smiths's statement is and what she said. women, in my experience, often see things differently and notice things in more detail than men in particular with regard to children. her statement would be interesting to see, imo.

most people walk on the footpath. therefore do you walk down the middle of the road to avoid rubbing shoulders with footpath walkers ? usually one group would have to move to accommodate the others passing, so you would be very close indeed in those curcumstances ?

i am thinking out loud so to speak with this post.

Panda wrote:

Christine wrote:I still find it odd that Gerry was walking in the middle of the street heading towards the Smiths. There is a foothpath on both sides of the street, close to the houses and buildings. Why not use that if he didn't want to be seen. If I don't want to be noticed, I would never walk in the middle of the street.

Morning Christine, I posted this here very early this morning:-

PortugalDiário: The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

Gonçalo Amaral: 'It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further"

Don't get me wrong Panda, I do believe the Smith's and it should be investigated further. The odd thing about it is Gerry walking in the middle of the road as if he wanted to be seen.

Christine wrote:

Panda wrote:

Christine wrote:I still find it odd that Gerry was walking in the middle of the street heading towards the Smiths. There is a foothpath on both sides of the street, close to the houses and buildings. Why not use that if he didn't want to be seen. If I don't want to be noticed, I would never walk in the middle of the street.

Morning Christine, I posted this here very early this morning:-

PortugalDiário: The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

Gonçalo Amaral: 'It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further"

Don't get me wrong Panda, I do believe the Smith's and it should be investigated further. The odd thing about it is Gerry walking in the middle of the road as if he wanted to be seen.

Gerry being spotted in the middle of the road, does not mean he was merely 'walking in the middle of the road.' I imagine his wheels were spinning and his adrenalin was pumping, and he had been spotted. Perhaps he thought the Smiths saw him before they actually did, certainly (imo) he was trying to make the best of a bad situation as he raced against the odds time wise. His priority was to hide the body and get back to the Tapas bar pronto. Jez had set him back considerably at the most crucial part of his plans, the Smiths now added to his mountain of troubles. imho

Correct - Jez also interupted Gerry hence him quickly dumping Little Maddie in the flower bed long enough for a mild scent to develop - 10min his chat was if he is to be believed Lady Kate wondered whether he was catching up on the footie!

I suspect the Smiths don't want the entire responsibility for pointing the finger at GMcC.

They saw a man carrying a child and thought nothing of it. They then heard about Madeleine and reported their sighting to the police. They didn't say at that stage that the guy bore a resemblance to GMcC, but described him in as much detail as they could. If they privately believed it was GMcC, they would have been watching the news as closely as the rest of us from May - Sept 2007 and at the point the McC's were made arguidos, would have believed that the police were going to charge them. It interests me that it was only after the McC's returned to the UK that the Smiths decided to contact the police again and highlight the fact that the man they saw looked very much like GMcC.

In my view, the Smiths strongly suspect that GMcC was the man they saw, but are not willing to testify that they are 100% certain of this, especially as there doesn't appear to be any other conclusive incriminating evidence against the McC's.

I would not want to be in the Smiths' shoes.