The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The Smith sighting

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Smith sighting

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 30.03.10 20:35

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.




Textusa


http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/03/smith-sighting.html

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7107
Reputation : 2492
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by vaguely1 on 30.03.10 20:43

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.



Well that would kind of depend what was behind him wouldn't it.

The best way of going unnoticed is to carry on as normal.....as opposed to darting around or trying to hide.





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.



I'm glad she does.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by aiyoyo on 31.03.10 5:03

So who could he be carrying? One of the twins? It was speculated the twins were left in the friend (DP's apt because of the listening device) while they dined. Was GM carrying the twins back to his apt before police arrived?

If Maddie died of an accident, inevitably they would have to use the twins when they staged the scene, no matter what.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by vaguely1 on 31.03.10 7:49

@aiyoyo wrote:So who could he be carrying? One of the twins? It was speculated the twins were left in the friend (DP's apt because of the listening device) while they dined. Was GM carrying the twins back to his apt before police arrived?

If Maddie died of an accident, inevitably they would have to use the twins when they staged the scene, no matter what.


Is that not a bit out of the way?

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by aiyoyo on 31.03.10 7:59

Yeah, you've got a point.

So who was he carrying then?
And why that direction?
Do you seriously think it was Madeleine he was carrying, at that sort of timing? How far could be go and what about search parties?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 31.03.10 8:09

How about Jane Tanners daughter?

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by vaguely1 on 31.03.10 8:19

@justagrannynow 1 wrote:How about Jane Tanners daughter?

Is it not still a bit out of the way?

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by vaguely1 on 31.03.10 8:26

@aiyoyo wrote:Yeah, you've got a point.

So who was he carrying then?
And why that direction?
Do you seriously think it was Madeleine he was carrying, at that sort of timing? How far could be go and what about search parties?


I don't think it was Gerry. In those circumstances hiding would be paramount. For an abductor (no need to say 'What abductor'....I know, I know) hiding wouldn't be the main thing on their mind. They would have their end goal in mind.

Plus time wise it just doesn't fit.

It was either an innocent parent who doesn't think it necessary to come forward, or hasn't heard of the sighting. Or it was someone who purposely hasn't come forward for a number of reasons.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by aiyoyo on 05.04.10 1:59

@vaguely1 wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:Yeah, you've got a point.

So who was he carrying then?
And why that direction?
Do you seriously think it was Madeleine he was carrying, at that sort of timing? How far could be go and what about search parties?


I don't think it was Gerry. In those circumstances hiding would be paramount. For an abductor (no need to say 'What abductor'....I know, I know) hiding wouldn't be the main thing on their mind. They would have their end goal in mind.

Plus time wise it just doesn't fit.

It was either an innocent parent who doesn't think it necessary to come forward, or hasn't heard of the sighting. Or it was someone who purposely hasn't come forward for a number of reasons.

You are right, the timing doesnt fit. I also do not think it was Gerry. Mr Smith, 4 months after the incident, without his glasses was only 60-70% sure it was Gerry...not so convincing.

It was such a hugh incident - all the tenants would have been interrogated, thus aware. I dont believe there is any tenant or anyone left who were there that day was unaware of the incident or hadn't come forward to be eliminated especially if they were carrying a child at that sort of timing.

Unless it was one of other Tapas member who was either carrying their child back to respective room (fitting in with speculation that all the children were in left in one apt,probably DP with the listening device, whose apt was on 1st level away from the rest of the tapas); or carrying the twins back to mccanns apt through an alternate albeit longer route for obvious reasons of charade among others, or for avoiding the main reception, or whatever. This will fit in with your 'someone who purposely hasnt come forward for a number of reasons.'

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 05.04.10 7:17

If the statements of the non Tapas group witnesses are taken into account, the timing does fit. The OC Receptionist, the Tapas bar/restaurant witnesses, Mrs Carpenter and the Smith family, all put the disappearance of Madeleine between 9.20pm and 10pm.

Only the McCann group say the alarm was raised after Kate left the table at 10pm to do her check.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by aiyoyo on 05.04.10 8:57

So maybe during that timing (9.20-10.00pm) the kids were been moved about into apts before the alarm raised. This will fit speculation they had been placed in one room while the adults dined and were probably moved back in time for the start of their charade.

On low season there wasnt much human traffic about at that hour. They'd taken their chances it would be relatively safe. And, if par hazard they were spotted, the darkness would render it difficult for witness in that 5-6 seconds to see properly anyway. At that worst scenario, then it would become a 'provoked' sighting, fitting in their plan perfectly anyway.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 05.04.10 16:01

The topic of when the alarm was raised, with the conflicting times, including the time of the Smith sighting, was discussed here

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/mccann-case-f3/what-time-was-the-alarm-raised-t584.htm?highlight=what+time+was+the+alarm+raised

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by aiyoyo on 07.04.10 4:23

If it was GM with MADDIE, how did he escape the scent of the death 'cavader'?

No..it can't have been Maddie the man (who he is) was carrying.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Smith sighting

Post by Kololi on 07.04.10 7:48

Hi
Just wondering why, if they had planned to convince the world of some abductor, why Mr McCann would chance being seen himself carrying Madeleine or another child who was meant to be Madeleine at roughly the time the alarm was going to be sounded?

They probably would have known that the media would be involved and therefore, if he was seen he might be recognised once he appeared in the worlds' press and their story could be blown apart.

Take care

Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum