Gerry McCann is the McStroller

by ufercoffy 11.09.10 7:49

The Luck of the Irish

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/09/luck-of-irish.html

6:53 PM

(9) Comments

By Metodo 2

McCann, far from stupid knew his word alone would not prove abduction. I believe McCann walked through the street with Tanner’s sedated child dressed in Madeleine’s pyjamas. We know they were Maddie’s thanks to her little sister, when Kate held them up she said promptly 'Maddie’s'. The pyjamas were one and the same.

Whatever Maddie died in, they were not THOSE pyjamas.

The Smiths flew back and made their statement in secret May 26th...this information was not released.

So, all those that think that the Smith Sighting was public from day one are wrong, it wasn’t, it only became public known in the following articles (1) (2), in the beginning of August 2007.

Then, and only then, did we all get to know that Martin Smith and his family had seen a man carrying a child.

Therefore, the only people that, between May and August 2007, knew that there was a person who had seen a child with bare feet in the pyjamas in the Rua da Escola Primária would have been the Smiths themselves, the IRISH and PORTUGUESE Polices and, obviously, the man who carried the child.

That man we now know to have been Gerry McCann. If, for nothing else, his behaviors in those days prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that yes, it was him.

Gerry McCann could not figure out why, a group of nine people, together with all the publicity, just didn’t come forward...

It was supposed to be a slam dunk case. A little girl had been abducted and he had made sure he had been seen carrying a barefooted, blonde little girl in pyjamas, and yet, albeit all the world coverage, THAT group of people simply didn’t surface.

What he didn’t know is that they had already, in effect, come forward, and made the statements that we now know, on May 26th.

Remember that at the time, ONLY the Smiths, PORTUGUESE and IRISH Polices and McStroller knew that.

Had JEZ WILKINS not come along when he did... and delayed slightly McCann, fate would probably determine that it wouldn’t be the Smith’s the crucial witnesses that night. They could have been some local residents, or better yet, Brit tourists. Someone, on the NEXT day, would have put two and two together and gone to PJ on the 4th.

And the McCanns would have had THEIR so much needed witness to the abduction... All the remainder details would have been completely overlooked, and all attention drawn not as to why, but as to where she had been taken to.

Maritime traffic would have scrutinized, many an illegal ship would have found sailing just off the coast. The couple would return home as martyrs.

It is the bare feet of the child and the pyjamas that ARE EMPHASIZED at the time, and not the man carrying the child.

In the beginning we just had an egg with hair (Tanner's description was released THREE weeks later to JOG the Smith's memory), in order to match Jane’s statement to what would surely be to the one given by that family that Gerry knew he had been seen by.

Gerry McCann is the McStroller Evolution

McCann told Tanner to mention this to PJ that night thinking the following day the witness would come forward on May 4th.

They did not and McCann waited and waited. Time tells us now that there were many things Gerry couldn’t control, and one of them was that the Smiths happened to return to Ireland on the 4th. Had they stayed in PdL and been caught up in all the media spectacle, it was likely they would come forward on the “planned” day.

To the McCann’s desperation (and ignorance), they simply didn’t appear.

And the tide started to turn against them. The Police started to look at the various blatant contradictions.

We now know that they did their best to distract the police by pointing the finger at Murat, who they knew, had played a part in that evening, and with some luck, some trace of Maddie would have been found linking him with to the “abducted” child. But the Murat’s were too careful from moment one. They understood the seriousness of the crime.

Murat got pointed out because the Smiths simply didn’t surface.

The tide continued to turn, stronger and stronger, against them. They had to act. Desperate, Gerry makes an appeal DIRECTLY and INEQUIVOCALY to the IRISH:

Day 37 June 9th 2007
After returning from the beach we did the Irish version of Crimewatch-‘Crimecall’. There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and although the awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance in Ireland is extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May. The address to upload photographs is: to http://www.blogger.com/www.madeleine.ceopupload.com . We have also asked for people to contact their local police if they have seen a man matching the description of the suspect carrying a child seen around the time of Madeleine’s abduction. He is 30-40 years, 1.70-1.80m (5’7”-11”), caucasian and was wearing a dark jacket, beige or mustard coloured trousers with dark shoes. No major news on the investigation front- we still believe it is just a single phone call away.

Why the IRISH? Is it a known fact that there are a “lot” of IRISH tourists in the Algarve? How many IRISH witnesses have you read in the tabloids or heard being involved in the infamous numerous sightings?

The only IRISH tourists that we’ve ever heard up to now of are the Smiths. They certainly DO NOT, by themselves, make up a 'lot'.

So, this DIRECT call to the IRISH will probably be explained, from the McCann Team as yet another of the inexplicable phenomenon that will certainly be studied in many fora in the future: The McCann Coincidence. They just keep coming in non-stop.

On this day, an appeal to the IRISH can ONLY mean that Gerry McCann knows that a group of IRISH people have seen a man carrying a child in all similar to his "abducted" daughter. And for him to know that, it can ONLY mean that he was the one seen with the child.

Murat by the May 14th was in the frame, but McCanns had here another bit of bad luck... Smith had seen, even if briefly, Murat before and confirmed it was not him with the child.

McCann continues to WAIT for the connection, he had done all he could to ask BEG even for THAT family to come forward.

As he says, ’IT IS JUST A SINGLE PHONE CALL AWAY’

Even, for argument’s sake, information had leaked out that the couple had come to the Police, which we have no reason for having happened, the fact is that they didn’t come out publicly. And that was absolutely required for the McCann marketing machine.

Martin Smith telephoned Leicester Police the evening of September 9th saying he recognized Gerry McCann... McCann would have been tipped off by his friendly bobby.

Note that ONLY from this date, is the Smith’s Sighting a liability against the McCanns. From this moment on, it’s important not only not to give it importance but to fragilize it as much as possible. What was an added value, suddenly has become cumbersome. VERY cumbersome.

LATER, Martin Smith said Brian Kennedy contacted him to be involved in some sort of photofit.

Martin Smith had to contact the MEDIA on several occasions because he said they kept misquoting him... It seems the child was now wrapped in a BLANKET... Martin Smith as we know from his statement has never mentioned a blanket.

Who was behind the media telling them to now say Mr.Smith saw a child wrapped in a blanket and why?

If he was confused about a blanket maybe he was also confused about recognizing Gerry McCann.

Unfortunately for Gerry, he was not.

But as this blog has proved, it’s NOT only the fact that Mr. Smith recognized Gerry that proves he was the McStroller, but it is due to his statement that we can rule out all the other male members.

Gerry McCann, is the McStroller.

Textusa

9 Responses to "The Luck of the Irish"

Anonymous said :
Sep 10, 2010 7:40:00 PM

Brilliant
Anonymous said :
Sep 10, 2010 7:41:00 PM

We now need Mr Smith to come forward and cast doubt over McCann doubt is enough to turn this whole scam on its head.
Anonymous said :
Sep 10, 2010 9:49:00 PM

excellent post
Anonymous said :
Sep 10, 2010 9:57:00 PM

How are the McCanns still free? Someone needs to stop this and now.
Anonymous said :
Sep 10, 2010 11:33:00 PM

And I read on the news( including the British Media) that when the Social service went to Mccann's house in Rothley, Amelie was wearing the famous pyjama and Madeleine sandals. Quick the Mccann's came forward to say that Amelie loves to wear her sister clothes. What a sinister behaviour, from a pair of parents.
If the pyjama went away with Madeleine, how it come back to Rothley? Gerry could answer that question, I believe.
Angelique said :
Sep 10, 2010 11:36:00 PM

This is good, no, in fact, it's very good. It proves for me that their intention was just this - but when did they decide to make it an 'abduction". That same evening - how could they think this far ahead. Were they given help and advice from someone.

Angelique
Anonymous said :
Sep 10, 2010 11:43:00 PM

It all seems to fit,, brilliant, the truth is coming.

Jimuck
Textusa said :
Sep 10, 2010 11:44:00 PM

Thank you Angelique.

They did not think that much ahead. They thought only until the next day. The Smiths would appear, and instead of Apartment 5A, the PdL beach would become a public shrine.

Only, they didn't appear the next day, nor the one after. Nor the next one... and then yes, they started to think ahead.

This is VERY important to understand their attitude when giving their first statements... they knew, or thought, they were just stalling, before those crucial witnesses appeared, and got them off the hook.

Also imprtant is for all to understand what was the threat they thought they faced... that, will be for a later date.

by macy 11.09.10 9:00

The problem is, even is the Smiths DID come forward and cast doubt over this whole sorry affair , none of the media would report on it anyway.
I think the McCanns, in ruining so many other lives have put paid to the Smiths ever publically speaking out anyway.

As an aside you`ve only got to look at the phone hacking scandal to see even MPs on the select committee were scared to speak out against News International after threats of `digging the dirt` on their personal lives.

by Guest 11.09.10 9:49

[quote] snipped

Gerry McCann could not figure out why, a group of nine people, together with all the publicity, just didn’t come forward...

It was supposed to be a slam dunk case. A little girl had been abducted and he had made sure he had been seen carrying a barefooted, blonde little girl in pyjamas, and yet, albeit all the world coverage, THAT group of people simply didn’t surface.

Sorry, simply does not make sense. Why would GM want to be seen, maybe by many people that night. He wouldn't have known how many would have been out that night, and how many witnesses would have seen him. He could have been identified by lots of people, as well as the Smith's. They could have positively identified him. How would he explain walking down to the beach at that time of night? with Madeleine allegedly abducted at around 9.15? Also, why would Tanner's sighting be scribbled on the note in the apartment, which was around 9.to 9.15 that night. Are we supposed to believe the abductor strolled around PDL for 40 minutes carrying a child. IF it was GM that night, he certainly wouldn't want to have been seen, hence the person not acknowledging Martin Smith.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.10 10:15

Just to place this on the record, I do not consider for a very large number of reasons that the person seen by Martin Smith and other members of the Smith family was Dr Gerald McCann, nor do I believe that the child seen by the Smith family was Madeleine.

And it's relevant to say that when one is carrying young children of the age of Sean and Amelie, to carry them over one arm with the head resting against the head, neck and shoulder (as dod Dr McCann coming off the plane back to England) is by far the commonest method of carrying a child (especially sleeping or tired), if one's doesn't have a pushchair or other equipment available. That doesn't come anywhere near to being a strong indication that the person Martin Smith saw was Dr Gerald McCann.

Two other points.

1. I do think Amelie's remark 'Maddie's jamas' is significant, though I won't spell out the reasons why here.

2. I think 'Textusa' is wrong generally about the 'Martin Smith sighting' (and about quite a few other things as well).

ETA: candyfloss, I have just seen your last paragraph in your post of 9.49am. I agree fully with your reasons for saying that the Smiths did NOT see Dr Gerald McCann, nor anyone else, carrying Madeleine. There are a number of other reasons why I am sure about this which I'll set out (if anyone wants me to) on another occasion

by Irish Eyes 11.09.10 10:35

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2009/07/madeleine-mccann-lenquete-interdite_09.html

Truth of The Lie- Chapter 8
A MAN WITH A CHILD IN HIS ARMS

May 3rd, around 9.27pm, Dolphin restaurant,
Vila da Luz

The Smiths, from Ireland, are spending their holiday in Praia da Luz. After having dinner at the restaurant, they go to Kelly's bar, 50 metres away. They leave there at around 9.55pm to go back to their apartment in Estrela da Luz, west of the Ocean Club, 300 metres further on. They don't stay late because the next morning one of them has to go back to Ireland. It's a big family, of four adults and five children: the father, aged 58, retired, and his wife; their 12 year-old daughter; their two grand-children aged 10 and 4 (their mother stayed in Ireland); their son accompanied by his wife - who is pregnant - and their two children aged 13 and 6.

(For maps and diagrams of the route taken by the Smiths, see The McCann Files. Link is headed, "The Smith's Sighting," roughly the 18th link in the menu on the left of the page.)

They go in a northerly direction, the group spreading out; the children are never far away from the adults. There's nobody about. They climb a few steps to reach 25 de Abril street, cross it and turn left into 1 de Maio street, that runs along the west side of the Ocean Club. They haven't gone 30 metres when they come across a man walking up the middle of the road. He is carrying a child in his arms, head resting on his left shoulder. The Smiths don't see the face of the little girl, whose arms hang by her sides. She is dressed in pale-coloured, maybe pink, pyjamas; her feet are bare, she is white and she has blonde hair that covers her neck. The individual's appearance gives the impression that he is not a tourist. He is wearing cream-coloured or beige trousers, classic in style, perhaps linen or cotton. He is a white man, aged around 30 to 35, with no other distinguishing features: he is between 1.70m and 1.80m tall, is visibly in good physical condition; his brown hair is cut short, his face is tanned.

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him.

With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they go back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.

Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.

by Irish Eyes 11.09.10 10:36

Tony Bennett wrote:There are a number of other reasons why I am sure about this which I'll set out (if anyone wants me to) on another occasion

Yes please.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.10 11:26

Irish Eyes wrote:http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2009/07/madeleine-mccann-lenquete-interdite_09.html

Truth of The Lie- Chapter 8
A MAN WITH A CHILD IN HIS ARMS

May 3rd, around 9.27pm, Dolphin restaurant,
Vila da Luz

The Smiths, from Ireland, are spending their holiday in Praia da Luz. After having dinner at the restaurant, they go to Kelly's bar, 50 metres away. They leave there at around 9.55pm to go back to their apartment in Estrela da Luz, west of the Ocean Club, 300 metres further on. They don't stay late because the next morning one of them has to go back to Ireland. It's a big family, of four adults and five children: the father, aged 58, retired, and his wife; their 12 year-old daughter; their two grand-children aged 10 and 4 (their mother stayed in Ireland); their son accompanied by his wife - who is pregnant - and their two children aged 13 and 6.

(For maps and diagrams of the route taken by the Smiths, see The McCann Files. Link is headed, "The Smith's Sighting," roughly the 18th link in the menu on the left of the page.)

They go in a northerly direction, the group spreading out; the children are never far away from the adults. There's nobody about. They climb a few steps to reach 25 de Abril street, cross it and turn left into 1 de Maio street, that runs along the west side of the Ocean Club. They haven't gone 30 metres when they come across a man walking up the middle of the road. He is carrying a child in his arms, head resting on his left shoulder. The Smiths don't see the face of the little girl, whose arms hang by her sides. She is dressed in pale-coloured, maybe pink, pyjamas; her feet are bare, she is white and she has blonde hair that covers her neck. The individual's appearance gives the impression that he is not a tourist. He is wearing cream-coloured or beige trousers, classic in style, perhaps linen or cotton. He is a white man, aged around 30 to 35, with no other distinguishing features: he is between 1.70m and 1.80m tall, is visibly in good physical condition; his brown hair is cut short, his face is tanned.

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him.

With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they go back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.

Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.

All very interesting, but the question at the heart of whether there really was an abductor or not was why Jane Tanner positivley and 'adamantly' identified Robert Murat as the mystery abductor on 13 May 2007. When that question can be answered with certainty, we shall be very close to understanding what has really gone on in this case.

by **Jill Havern** 11.09.10 14:39

Chapter 20: An Irish family in a state of shock

Gerry McCann is the McStroller GerryCarryingSean

AN IRISH FAMILY IN A STATE OF SHOCK.

The McCann couple return to Great Britain after more than four months spent in the Algarve. It's an almost triumphant return. The media coverage is such that you'd think you were witnessing the liberation of hostages held for years in a far-off country. Gerald McCann is shown on television carrying his son, as he descends from the plane. The child's head is against Gerald's left shoulder and his arms dangling by his sides. Gerald walks across the tarmac, still holding his son closely against himself.

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. It's as if the scene is repeating itself ....Mr Smith thinking he's hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-20-irish-family-in-state-of.html

by aiyoyo 11.09.10 14:57

Tony Bennett wrote:Just to place this on the record, I do not consider for a very large number of reasons that the person seen by Martin Smith and other members of the Smith family was Dr Gerald McCann, nor do I believe that the child seen by the Smith family was Madeleine.

And it's relevant to say that when one is carrying young children of the age of Sean and Amelie, to carry them over one arm with the head resting against the head, neck and shoulder (as dod Dr McCann coming off the plane back to England) is by far the commonest method of carrying a child (especially sleeping or tired), if one's doesn't have a pushchair or other equipment available. That doesn't come anywhere near to being a strong indication that the person Martin Smith saw was Dr Gerald McCann.

Two other points.

1. I do think Amelie's remark 'Maddie's jamas' is significant, though I won't spell out the reasons why here.

2. I think 'Textusa' is wrong generally about the 'Martin Smith sighting' (and about quite a few other things as well).

ETA: candyfloss, I have just seen your last paragraph in your post of 9.49am. I agree fully with your reasons for saying that the Smiths did NOT see Dr Gerald McCann, nor anyone else, carrying Madeleine. There are a number of other reasons why I am sure about this which I'll set out (if anyone wants me to) on another occasion

Me too, I dont think the man Martin Smith saw was GM carrying MBM. Timing is all wrong for one. It didnt allow GM to hide the corpse and return in time for alarm.

As for the pink pjs, if Maddie was supposed to have been abducted wearing the pyjamas how can it still be in mccanns possession?

by Judge Mental 11.09.10 20:02

aiyoyo wrote ............... 'As for the pink pjs, if Maddie was supposed to have been abducted wearing the pyjamas how can it still be in mccanns possession?'

thinking

One has pondered endlessly upon this and after having listened intently to the parents abduction theory, one has come to the conclusion below, albeit, having read the police files, one is also able to see this from a complete different angle with equal magnanimity.

One believes that it is possible that Madeleine preferred the shimmering fairy costume that the abductor happened to have in his big blue holdall. One imagines that the abductor lovingly and carefully helped her to change into her sparkly new outfit, making sure that her hair did not become entangled in the jewelled beading.

One then has to assume that it was at this point where the abductor told her that the outfit she had chosen was more befitting of her new life with the loving couple who had paid lots of money for her to live with them in their splendid palace in a far off magical land, and that she should hide and keep quiet for only a few moments while he ran back to 5A with the pyjamas, stealing the last few seconds of what was left of the last minutes of the window of opportunity.

by littlepixie 11.09.10 22:59

by aiyoyo 11.09.10 23:32

Judge Mental wrote:aiyoyo wrote ............... 'As for the pink pjs, if Maddie was supposed to have been abducted wearing the pyjamas how can it still be in mccanns possession?'

One has pondered endlessly upon this and after having listened intently to the parents abduction theory, one has come to the conclusion below, albeit, having read the police files, one is also able to see this from a complete different angle with equal magnanimity.

One believes that it is possible that Madeleine preferred the shimmering fairy costume that the abductor happened to have in his big blue holdall. One imagines that the abductor lovingly and carefully helped her to change into her sparkly new outfit, making sure that her hair did not become entangled in the jewelled beading.

One then has to assume that it was at this point where the abductor told her that the outfit she had chosen was more befitting of her new life with the loving couple who had paid lots of money for her to live with them in their splendid palace in a far off magical land, and that she should hide and keep quiet for only a few moments while he ran back to 5A with the pyjamas, stealing the last few seconds of what was left of the last minutes of the window of opportunity.

And, when was that change from pink jammies to princess outfit complete with tiara supposed to have taken place?

More importantly where was that supposed to have taken place - the beach?

Did the mcstroller have a bluebag slinged over one shoulder and a child slinged over another shoulder?

To have effected that change of attire, Maddie must have been dead many hours ago earlier.

The mcstroller MS saw had a child slung over his shoulder - did he mention pink blanket?

I doubt cunning and meticulous mccanns would been so careless as to cart away a corpse (oops) without covering it,and done on FOOT in open area thereby risking being spotted. Freak control GM would have used a cover like bluebag.

Come to think of it, even abductor who had the mind to come into the bedroom to snatch a child would have the mind to snatch also a cover and wouldnt be seen dead taking his own sweet time strolling leisurely in uncovered area with his bounty (sp) slinged openly over his shoulder. In that manner, without ironhorse, he couldnt have gone far and would have been found by the search party. Between 9.50 and time of alarm, hence search party isnt such a great difference and wouldnt have allowed enough time for proper escape especially burdened down with a child.

Dont know what to make of mcstroller. If you ask me, it was a freaky coincidence of a man with a sleeping child, nothing to do with the crime in question.

Besides the wrong timing, if it was GM, in that close proximity GM would have known he was spotted and I doubt he would have been so brazen with his cover up spins because trying to counter nine (not one) witnesses is quite a tall and risky order.

Wasnt there a speculation during the old 3as days, Maddie was sent to St. Peter's gate in the skin she'd arrived in the world ie sans clothings. And that the pink blanket and pyjamas the ace PJs are holding?

by Judge Mental 12.09.10 0:31

@ aiyoyo

As one has already intimated, there is much to ponder upon. big grin

by Cheshire Cat 12.09.10 19:24

Well this thread has given me lots to think about - I feel confused but perhaps a new clarity will follow?

Cheshire Cat (Mr D)

by Cheshire Cat 13.09.10 11:20

Going by Mr Smiths description, is it possible he saw O'Brien? The still from the Rog interview shows O'Brien looking quite different from the usual photograph with the sun on his face and hair (as he walks ahead of Fiona Payne).

Did Mr Smith actually see O'Brien? Is that why O'Brien was not on the steps of the high court with the others..because it would provide viewers with an informal "identity parade"? Would have perhaps jogged a few memories?

Of course I am thinking along the lines of an attempt to fake the abduction as part of the cover-up.

From The Times August 22, 2007 [abridged]

I’m not a suspect in Madeleine’s abduction, says friend of family
Paulo Reis in Praia da Luz and David Brown

Portuguese newspapers reported yesterday that police were about to arrest a man in Exeter, where Dr O’Brien lives with his wife, Jane Tanner, a key witness in the police investigation.

In a statement, Dr O’Brien and his wife said: “These reports in the Portuguese press are completely untrue and extremely hurtful. We have spoken to the police today, and have been assured that our status as witnesses has not changed.

“We would like to request that the privacy of our family and our police testimony are respected by the media. We just hope that the police’s considerable efforts to find Madeleine are successful.”

Portuguese police said yesterday that there was no basis for the allegations about Dr O’Brien, who moved to Exeter from Leicester soon before the holiday in Praia da Luz.

Mr O’Brien, a father of two, left the tapas restaurant at about the time Madeleine is believed to have been snatched. He told police that he was looking after his young daughter, who was vomiting. The girl is the same age as Madeleine, who disappeared six days before her fourth birthday. Mr and Mrs McCann, both 39, from Rothley, Leicestershire, are understood to be deeply upset about the allegations about their friends and have said they do not believe any of them were involved.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.10 11:49

Cheshire Cat wrote:Going by Mr Smith's description, is it possible he saw O'Brien?

Surely the answer to this must be 'No'.

If we assume, just for a moment, that Madeleine was dead, whether she'd died that evening or earlier as some suggest, is it really credible that ANY of the 'Tapas 9' could have been walking openly through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.50pm, minutes before Dr Kate McCann and others publicly raised the alarm about Madeleine?

It would seem an unbelievable risk to take, don't you think?

by Cheshire Cat 13.09.10 12:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:Going by Mr Smith's description, is it possible he saw O'Brien?
Surely the answer to this must be 'No'.

If we assume, just for a moment, that Madeleine was dead, whether she'd died that evening or earlier as some suggest, is it really credible that ANY of the 'Tapas 9' could have been walking openly through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.50pm, minutes before Dr Kate McCann and others publicly raised the alarm about Madeleine?

It would seem an unbelievable risk to take, don't you think?

If the events of the evening of May 3 were planned then of course it would be a huge risk.
Which would make it even more risky for that person to be Gerry McCann!

Mr Smith seemed to rule out the person being RM (?)

by ufercoffy 13.09.10 13:39

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:Going by Mr Smith's description, is it possible he saw O'Brien?
Surely the answer to this must be 'No'. If we assume, just for a moment, that Madeleine was dead, whether she'd died that evening or earlier as some suggest, is it really credible that ANY of the 'Tapas 9' could have been walking openly through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.50pm, minutes before Dr Kate McCann and others publicly raised the alarm about Madeleine? It would seem an unbelievable risk to take, don't you think?

Why was this written in Amaral's book then? Gerry McCann is the McStroller 706442

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. It's as if the scene is repeating itself ....Mr Smith thinking he's hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.10 14:29

ufercoffy wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:Going by Mr Smith's description, is it possible he saw O'Brien?
Surely the answer to this must be 'No'. If we assume, just for a moment, that Madeleine was dead, whether she'd died that evening or earlier as some suggest, is it really credible that ANY of the 'Tapas 9' could have been walking openly through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.50pm, minutes before Dr Kate McCann and others publicly raised the alarm about Madeleine? It would seem an unbelievable risk to take, don't you think?

Why was this written in Amaral's book then?

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. It's as if the scene is repeating itself ....Mr Smith thinking he's hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt.

ufercoffy, I have thought a great deal about the emphasis given to the Smith sighting in Amaral's book and also to Amaral's clear views not only that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A but also that she was still alive at around 5.30pm to 7.30pm on 3 May 2007.

On the very specific point you raise, I strongly suspect that there has been a mistranslation of Mr Amaral's Portuguese words.

The translation you've quoted says this: "From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt".

I suspect that would be more correctly rendered: "From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that, he has very little doubt".

by Cheshire Cat 13.09.10 15:55

Tony

I think that the comments you have made about the translations make sense.

I don't know who that mystery man was that Mr Smith saw if it wasn't Gerry - Mr Smith seemed so shaken by the image of GM and the twin.

Robert Murat does not resemble the man Mr Smith described although Mr Smith thought the man did not appear to be a tourist.

thinking

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.10 16:10

Cheshire Cat wrote:Tony - I think that the comments you have made about the translations make sense.

I don't know who that mystery man was that Mr Smith saw if it wasn't Gerry - Mr Smith seemed so shaken by the image of GM and the twin. Robert Murat does not resemble the man Mr Smith described although Mr Smith thought the man did not appear to be a tourist.

Thnak you.

Another doubt about the 'Smith sighting' is that other members of the Smith family also gave statements and I believe at least one of them referred to a younger man, maybe about 25-30 I think it was said. There were some other discrepancies as I recall. In simple terms I think the Smiths saw someone else, not any member of the 'Tapas' group.

There is another point about Amaral's interest in the 'Smith sighting'. Let us just suppose for one brief moment that this 'abduction' was in fact an elaborate and cunning hoax.

If that were the case, we have a tremendous advantage over Goncalo Amaral. We have had 3 years and 4 months to analyse this case. Goncalo Amaral only had 4 months.

It would be like unravelling a ball of string that's got hopelessly entangled. Amaral only had time to untie the first few loops.