the smith sighting..credits to testusa

4timesanan wrote:headine should read credits to textusa...aplogies for my typing error

pennylane wrote: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

Christine wrote:

pennylane wrote: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

But if Janes story is fiction, which I believe too, what would they have done if Gerry hadn't run into Wilkins? Gerry and Jane could hardly say they both saw the abductor, and the timing would be wrong too. It should have been closer to 10pm.

Christine wrote:

pennylane wrote: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

But if Janes story is fiction, which I believe too, what would they have done if Gerry hadn't run into Wilkins? Gerry and Jane could hardly say they both saw the abductor, and the timing would be wrong too. It should have been closer to 10pm.

margaret wrote:What l'm wondering is (because l did think it was the 2nd) why was Gerry carrying her through the streets at all?? Why not hide her somehow, they had a buggy, a bag, a blanket.

Did Gerry check himself find Maddie dead and decide dispose of Maddie himself?
Does this mean Kate doesn't know?
Still doesn't explain the pact?

I like picking theories through.

margaret wrote:What l'm wondering is (because l did think it was the 2nd) why was Gerry carrying her through the streets at all?? Why not hide her somehow, they had a buggy, a bag, a blanket.

Did Gerry check himself find Maddie dead and decide dispose of Maddie himself?
Does this mean Kate doesn't know?
Still doesn't explain the pact?

I like picking theories through.

juulcy wrote:
Another question, I can't get access to the mccann files site, does anyone know of a problem?

juulcy wrote:Hello,

I like looking at a new theorie, so keep on spinning.
Imo the thing with the two sightings can be caused by different happenings

I think we can presume that the sighting of Jane was made up.
- Jane wasn't clear at first if she was going to her check, or coming from her check
- There is the discrepencie of the place on the street were Jeremy+Gerry stood
- Her story on the man in the sighting changed overtime
-She didn't come forward with her sighting immediately

I think the girl being transported in the Smith sighting was Madeleine. I agree with another post that said that any regular father carying his childbe it tourist or local, would have been intensely aware of the disappearance of Madeleine, and would have concluded after some time, that it was him the Smiths had seen. He would have come forward.


SO it is one of these two

1)
There truly was an abduction. K+G feared the police would not be active enough, and invented a sighting. (Jane). The Smith sighting was of the real abductor.

or 2)
The Smiths sighting was of Gerry carying Madeleine. The Jane sighting was invented to muddy the waters. (or Jane acted all of her own, because she desperately wanted to help, believing in the abduction theory)

I think option 2 is more likely. Why? Because, if K+G truly wanted to leave no stone unturned, they would have confessed that the Jane sighting was a fake. Unless they too were taken in by a lone act of Jane, who is afraid to now tell, after all this time, that she invented the sighting. They would have
explained their reasoning (fear) and have the police investigate the Smith sighting.

Another question, I can't get access to the mccann files site, does anyone know of a problem?

lnorton wrote:The pictures in the case files appear to show a blue bag in the wardrobe of the parents room and one (or two?) of the questions Kate refused to answer was relating to what was in the wardrobe when she did her 10pm check and discovered Madeleine gone.
I think Gerry was hurrying towards the beach to hand the body over to someone who would then hide it much further away than Gerry could have done in the time he had. The other person would secrete the body somewhere and then text or call Gerry with the exact whereabouts. That would explain the delay in contacting the police. Until this information had been received they dared not them involved.
So the text or call comes in and at that point all call/text records are erased and the authorities notified of an "abduction?"
The blue bag went with the Mccanns the next morning when they went to dig up or otherwise uncover the body and pass it on to its next place of (non) rest. They could not risk getting dirt/sand/fluid? on their clothes at that stage so the body went straight into the bag.

lnorton wrote:AnnaEsse I didn't know about them waiting for ROB to turn up. He and JT seem to be VERY heavily involved don't they.

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.

4timesanan wrote: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.