the smith sighting..credits to testusa

sos..images need filling in gracias


The Smith Sighting
5:51 PM
(11) Comments
You see what you get... but do check if you get what you see.

When I looked at the roads of PDL with some attention, doing my research for the post about the geographical absurdity of the abduction, there was a detail that immediately seemed odd before my eyes. It seemed to be totally out of logic, however, I checked again with Amaral’s book, and there it was.

I’m referring to the location where the Smith sighting took place.

As it was not the crucial for the intended purposes of that particular post, I basically stated it, showed where it was and explained how it could fit into a possible scenario of body-concealment, the route between the Ocean Club and the waterfront, be it the Church, be it the beach.

There, was a piece of the puzzles that seemed to fit, but, in my mind, not as perfectly as it should.

A man, carrying a child, crosses path with a family in the exact spot as shown in the following picture:


That man, at that point in time and location, could only be doing one of three things: abduct a sleeping child, carry a lifeless body or simply innocently going home with, presumably, his daughter.

The Smiths, for the most natural of reasons, thought of the latter.

I think it’s agreed by all that the main difference between the first two scenarios and the third one, is basically the willingness to be seen.

In the first two, abduction and concealment, for obvious reasons, one certainly DOES NOT want to be seen. If, and ONLY IF one CANNOT ABSOLUTELY AVOID “contact” will one do one’s utmost effort to look as natural as possible to seem to be part of scenario three. The first natural reaction is to avoid.

However, on the third scenario, as expected, one couldn’t care less if one was seen or not. All is explainable, so one just goes on walking down the street and on with one’s.

Well, I don’t think that ANYBODY that was in PDL on the night of the May 3rd, 2007, that doesn’t remember where he/she was, what he/she was doing, and exactly what he/she did for that whole night.

The majority just slept, but all those that did sleep remember to this day and shall not forget it, that what they did during THAT night was just to sleep.

Local and tourist alike.

So, after so much fuss having been raised with about a man seen carrying a child in that street at that time, that person, even if only to facilitate the investigations would have, by now, stepped forward and explained where he had been and where and why is was heading and, most importantly, who he was carrying. He who has nothing to fear, fears nothing.

So, I think, at this point in time, we’re all in agreement that particular crossing of paths could only have happened for one of the first two reasons: abduction or concealment.

Where this piece of the puzzle doesn’t fit is the concealment. Or absence of it.

In Amaral’s book, the picture that identifies the exact location of where this happened seems to support that the crossing was unavoidable. The man that was carrying the child, lifeless or abducted, had had a fortitious encounter, the worst of lucks of having that family coming up that street at exactly that time and see him:

But let’s remember when these events happened. Late evening, in early May, in a quaint and quiet little town, called Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, Portugal. Far, far from being the tourist season. And that town, even in the hot July/August nights, they are normally quiet. If you want action, you head for Lagos.

But we’re in May, all is quiet, a silent night.

Now let’s look, at the street where this happened, and the distances involved. Side by side, same scale, the street and the Ocean Club:



As you can see, all happened in the exact distance between the entrance of the Ocean Club and the back gate of Apartment 5A, or that between Jane Tanner and the abductor.

Or, better yet, the perfectly acceptable "good parenting distance" between the Apartment 5A and the Tapas Bar:


The Smith family, returning from "KELLY's BAR" headed north, all spread out along the street, approached that particular street.


Believe me, (and if you don’t it’s ONLY just because you don’t want to), a party of NINE (FOUR adults and FIVE children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland) walking NORMALLY, and talking NORMALLY in that silent street, on that silent night, would have been heard WITH ENOUGH anticipation for the man to hide, or, at least, take an alternative route:


And if you ever have seen a British family on holiday, with children, leaving a bar, in the Algarve, silence is not the best adjective to be applied.


And that man, surely had ALL his senses heightened to maximum capability. Oh, he heard them alright...

To sum up, THAT man, THAT night on THAT street WANTED to be seen. Instead of turning and hiding WITHOUT BEING SEEN, he walks straight on.

Knowing that the child carried was wearing pyjama bottoms and was barefooted, all similar to a child just abducted not even half a mile away, one can only deduce that what happened at that moment was a provoked “sighting”.

If you add to this, that Smith identifies Gerry McCann as the man he saw, this piece of the puzzle takes a whole new shape, and is of a different game altogether.

So why was Gerry McCann walking around Praia da Luz, looking to be seen holding a child, dressed like his daughter, in his arms, on the night she was supposedly kidnapped, around about the same time Kate McCann sounds off the alarm?

I have a pretty good idea.

ann-chovey..thankyou..nan
i have tried but i cant do links or copy photos..they never seem to work ..thanks again

Thank you for posting.


"Believe me, (and if you don’t it’s ONLY just because you don’t want to), a party of NINE (FOUR adults and FIVE children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland) walking NORMALLY, and talking NORMALLY in that silent street, on that silent night, would have been heard WITH ENOUGH anticipation for the man to hide, or, at least, take an alternative route:

And if you ever have seen a British family on holiday, with children, leaving a bar, in the Algarve, silence is not the best adjective to be applied."


Perhaps the 4 year old was sleeping - so the family weren't making a lot of noise???

I think Wilkins seriously hampered the time lines, and I think Gerry made the best he could of a bad situation, but I do not believe he wanted to be seen. Nope I just don't. I think doubling back was not an option as he had to be somewhere quickly and get back and I think he was caught in mid stride.

4timesanan wrote:ann-chovey..thankyou..nan
i have tried but i cant do links or copy photos..they never seem to work ..thanks again

no problem, I've made many a boo boo, but now I have a good 'mouse'.

I've said for ages that Gerry was walking around PDL with either Amelie or Tanners child hoping to seen by people who would come forward with the same sighting to confirm an 'abduction' had indeed taken place. However as has become clear Gerry has been identified as that person carrying a child which would have been a strange plan given that he needed to have an alibi.

The only other thought l have is that maybe Gerry went to check on Maddie and found her dead and decided to get rid of her body himself and inform no-one, but that is more incredulous than the present circumstances.

pennylane wrote:Thank you for posting.


"Believe me, (and if you don’t it’s ONLY just because you don’t want to), a party of NINE (FOUR adults and FIVE children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland) walking NORMALLY, and talking NORMALLY in that silent street, on that silent night, would have been heard WITH ENOUGH anticipation for the man to hide, or, at least, take an alternative route:

And if you ever have seen a British family on holiday, with children, leaving a bar, in the Algarve, silence is not the best adjective to be applied."


Perhaps the 4 year old was sleeping - so the family weren't making a lot of noise???

I think Wilkins seriously hampered the time lines, and I think Gerry made the best he could of a bad situation, but I do not believe he wanted to be seen. Nope I just don't. I think doubling back was not an option as he had to be somewhere quickly and get back and I think he was caught in mid stride.

I agree pennylane. I just don't think Gerry wanted to be seen. Neither do I think the family was necessarily noisy, leaving a bar with a few sleepy children.

margaret wrote:I've said for ages that Gerry was walking around PDL with either Amelie or Tanners child hoping to seen by people who would come forward with the same sighting to confirm an 'abduction' had indeed taken place. However as has become clear Gerry has been identified as that person carrying a child which would have been a strange plan given that he needed to have an alibi.

The only other thought l have is that maybe Gerry went to check on Maddie and found her dead and decided to get rid of her body himself and inform no-one, but that is more incredulous than the present circumstances.

so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please - sorry

tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

I think Jane Tanner was dragged in because Gerry knew the Smith's might identify him. It was cobbled together after Gerry's unfortunate run in with them. It was the one thing he feared the most imo.

amethyst wrote:

so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please - sorry

tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

It's pretty obvious it's Gerry so whose child was he carrying? He wouldn't parade a dead Maddie round the streets but he would another child to create the 'illusion' of an abductor. An abductor isn't an abductor if the only witness is a friend (who can't even decide what he looks like but l digress), they needed other holidaymakers to see this 'abductor'.

margaret wrote:

amethyst wrote:

so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please - sorry

tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

It's pretty obvious it's Gerry so whose child was he carrying? He wouldn't parade a dead Maddie round the streets but he would another child to create the 'illusion' of an abductor. An abductor isn't an abductor if the only witness is a friend (who can't even decide what he looks like but l digress), they needed other holidaymakers to see this 'abductor'.

right so gerry took obriens sleeping child - with his permission - who wasnt even blonde and paraded her down the roads WAITING to be seen - like he knew the smith family would spot him - to show that another person/persons would spot an abductor

sorry im seriously losing every single plot now

pennylane wrote:I think Jane Tanner was dragged in because Gerry knew the Smith's might identify him. It was cobbled together after Gerry's unfortunate run in with them. It was the one thing he feared the most imo.

Our posts crossed and your thoughts make more sense, so...... if she'd died earlier, 2nd May then her body would have been in the tennis bag hidden away from plain view and disposed of during the day of the 3rd (you'd think). Which does mean Maddie died late afternoon/evening of 3rd and Gerry was taking Maddie somewhere, to the beach to be buried, seems risky though?

Just thinking aloud here.....

margaret wrote:

amethyst wrote:

so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please - sorry

tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

It's pretty obvious it's Gerry so whose child was he carrying? He wouldn't parade a dead Maddie round the streets but he would another child to create the 'illusion' of an abductor. An abductor isn't an abductor if the only witness is a friend (who can't even decide what he looks like but l digress), they needed other holidaymakers to see this 'abductor'.

Hi margaret,
I don't think Gerry was "parading" a dead Maddie, I think he was a man desperately hustling for his future - on very short notice with a major tragedy on his hands, and I believe he was carrying Maddie.

amethyst wrote:

margaret wrote:

amethyst wrote:

so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please - sorry

tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

It's pretty obvious it's Gerry so whose child was he carrying? He wouldn't parade a dead Maddie round the streets but he would another child to create the 'illusion' of an abductor. An abductor isn't an abductor if the only witness is a friend (who can't even decide what he looks like but l digress), they needed other holidaymakers to see this 'abductor'.

right so gerry took obriens sleeping child - with his permission - who wasnt even blonde and paraded her down the roads WAITING to be seen - like he knew the smith family would spot him - to show that another person/persons would spot an abductor

sorry im seriously losing every single plot now

You pointed out that obriens child wasn't blonde in the first post, so l said if it is Gerry whose child was he carrying?

And if their story was going to be an abduction had taken place then other independant people had to witness this abduction no?

PMSL at you losing the plot, just throwing ideas out, it's hardly on the scale of the volcano theory

margaret wrote:

pennylane wrote:I think Jane Tanner was dragged in because Gerry knew the Smith's might identify him. It was cobbled together after Gerry's unfortunate run in with them. It was the one thing he feared the most imo.

Our posts crossed and your thoughts make more sense, so...... if she'd died earlier, 2nd May then her body would have been in the tennis bag hidden away from plain view and disposed of during the day of the 3rd (you'd think). Which does mean Maddie died late afternoon/evening of 3rd and Gerry was taking Maddie somewhere, to the beach to be buried, seems risky though?

Just thinking aloud here.....

I agree Margaret, Maddie died on 3rd and yes their plan was risky, but the alternative - for the McCanns - was career suicide and loss of the twins. It was a hasty, desperate plan, with a lot of mistakes as a result.

margaret wrote:

amethyst wrote:

margaret wrote:

amethyst wrote:

so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please - sorry

tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

It's pretty obvious it's Gerry so whose child was he carrying? He wouldn't parade a dead Maddie round the streets but he would another child to create the 'illusion' of an abductor. An abductor isn't an abductor if the only witness is a friend (who can't even decide what he looks like but l digress), they needed other holidaymakers to see this 'abductor'.

right so gerry took obriens sleeping child - with his permission - who wasnt even blonde and paraded her down the roads WAITING to be seen - like he knew the smith family would spot him - to show that another person/persons would spot an abductor

sorry im seriously losing every single plot now

You pointed out that obriens child wasn't blonde in the first post, so l said if it is Gerry whose child was he carrying?

And if their story was going to be an abduction had taken place then other independant people had to witness this abduction no?

PMSL at you losing the plot, just throwing ideas out, it's hardly on the scale of the volcano theory

i think it is

that gerry found his daughter dead and convinced his mate ruseell to allow him to carry his child around pdl as some kind of decoy is exactly as mad as any volcano theory

I agree with pennylane about this. I think Gerry was in a great hurry to conceal what had happened and he probably didn't even think about who might have seen him. Whether he was heading for the beach or another location where a body could be temporarily stored is something only he and maybe one or two others knows.

With regards to the Smith family making a lot of noise (as the OP summized).

Sometimes, even in large parties of people on holiday, there are natural lulls in conversation.

I have found this happens when my own family get together over here in the U.S, and they have flown in from Britain. There seems to be specific times when everyone is excited, talking, laughing etc (usually in the mornings, on the way to outings etc!), but I find a lot of the lulls in the later part of the day, when returning from eating, theme parks, etc. Its like everyone is tired, has had a lovely time, and is relaxed and quiet, just recapping in their minds what a lovely day they have had, and quietly going home.

I think its perfectly possible that the Smith family were feeling like this. They could have had a day filled with activity, beach, games, walking, fresh air etc, and when they exited from the pub (after a nighcap, I believe?), then they were most likely winding down from their day, and quietly lost in their own thoughts.

Gerry could very easily have not even noticed them until the last minute, as he would have been totally tied up in his concerns, and his mind would have been on a million other things, It was a suprise meeting, but for them not suspicious until later.

LindaDA wrote:With regards to the Smith family making a lot of noise (as the OP summized).

Sometimes, even in large parties of people on holiday, there are natural lulls in conversation.

I have found this happens when my own family get together over here in the U.S, and they have flown in from Britain. There seems to be specific times when everyone is excited, talking, laughing etc (usually in the mornings, on the way to outings etc!), but I find a lot of the lulls in the later part of the day, when returning from eating, theme parks, etc. Its like everyone is tired, has had a lovely time, and is relaxed and quiet, just recapping in their minds what a lovely day they have had, and quietly going home.

I think its perfectly possible that the Smith family were feeling like this. They could have had a day filled with activity, beach, games, walking, fresh air etc, and when they exited from the pub (after a nighcap, I believe?), then they were most likely winding down from their day, and quietly lost in their own thoughts.

Gerry could very easily have not even noticed them until the last minute, as he would have been totally tied up in his concerns, and his mind would have been on a million other things, It was a suprise meeting, but for them not suspicious until later.

The Smiths' daughter in law was feeling a bit off colour (expecting a baby), they'd had only one drink as they were catching an early flight the following day, so yes I expect they had their own concerns, hardly looking out for 'swarthy abductors'.

I think this is as good a theory as any and agree with Pennylane and AnnaEsse. Oh just saw the post by Ann Chovey, you have such a good memory, and yes im sure their thoughts were anywhere but on a yet to be discovered missing child. imo

That's why the Man the Smiths saw , averted his gaze at them , he did not want to be seen ,but just brazenly carry on walking past them , but turning and doubling back would have looked suspicious .
The fact that the Child the Smiths saw was wearing the same clothes as maddy was the same build as maddy and had blonde Hair .
the Man carrying the Child looked and had the same mannerisms as Gerry McCann (Do the Math )
the Fact the McCann did not relies this sighting until the PJ Files were relised , says it all

Well, Gerry knew it would be quiet (ish) so gambled, I think, on the fact that if he was seen it was his word against theirs and in any case he has convinced the whole world (he thinks) that there was an abductor at large and he is the victim, so his word against theirs is they must have seen someone else, some stranger, just like Jane Tanner - is this why Jane Tanner told the Police she saw a man carrying a child? To make it appear like one and the same man? He knew he had been seen so had to think quick. Jane Tanner was the obvious choice to manufacture a story she had seen someone, just to cover Gerry's tracks.

fizzbomb200 wrote:That's why the Man the Smiths saw , averted his gaze at them , he did not want to be seen ,but just brazenly carry on walking past them , but turning and doubling back would have looked suspicious .
The fact that the Child the Smiths saw was wearing the same clothes as maddy was the same build as maddy and had blonde Hair .
the Man carrying the Child looked and had the same mannerisms as Gerry McCann (Do the Math )
the Fact the McCann did not relies this sighting until the PJ Files were relised , says it all

Add in the fact that Gerry nit-picked over a couple of centimetres in the description of the height of Tanner's 'abductor' so he was taller than the Smiths one.........I think it was that way round. Gerry isn't that tall. Confusion is good.

I find the theory that Gerry ran around the streets with a fake Maddie, totally absurd!

When he ran into the Smith's he was no doubt frantic, and desperate to conceal Maddie and get back to the apartment quickly. He knew that all these people seeing him would be his downfall. He thought.......'I'm fooked!'

While good people were out searching for Maddie, he and Kate stayed in the apartment all night, plotting and scheming their stories and trying to find a way out of this dangerous sighting of Gerry by the Smiths. They figured the best antidote was for someone to see both him and the abductor simultaneously........ enter Jane!

This is the most feasible explanation, and it slots in perfectly with Wilkins not seeing Jane, because her story is fiction.

Wilkins and Smith would be ideal witnesses for the prosecution imo