Smithman theory

This is a reply to the post SMITHMAN 12 which I seem unable to reply to......
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've always thought the Smith sighting was genuine but was unable to work out a scenario to fit. However, now I have. This is my theory.


On 3rd May in order to stage an abduction, Gerry carried the sedated Ella O Brien - who looked uncanily like Maddie -from the Resort towards the beach to be met by someone with a car to take them back to the resort and put Ella back to bed. It had to be timed to coincide nicely with the alarm being raised. The tapas lot would provide an alibi for Gerry.


 It was early in the tourist season and the streets were known to be empty so it was unlikely he would be seen by anyone....he didnt want to be.


 He wanted to be seen by grainy, dark, CCTV.


 However, after he was seen by the large Smith family who were close enough to speak to him, it was far too likely that he could be identified so they had to abandon plan A and get Jane Tanner to come to the rescue.


The original plan was for her to have seen an abductor heading towards the beach which would tie in nicely with the sighting on cctv. However, with the abandonment of plan A, thanks to the Smiths, now she needed to see an abductor going in totally the opposite direction so they could all focus on that and dismiss any sitings elsewhere.


It should be noted at this point that everyone involved was supposed to describe an abductor that matched the genuine sighting on cctv....beige trousers and all that.


Unfortunately, now that the cctv ploy had been abandoned, noone thought to change the description of the abductor but at a later point they suddenly realised it sounded uncanily like Gerry and they had to change the sighting to a more mediterranean looking fella of a different height and size.


 By this time the british bigwigs would be involved and able to try and keep the PJ off the scent of cctv. I read somewhere that Gerry even went to Ireland to encourage “anyone” (Smiths) to come forward with sightings. They were desperate to get the Smith sighting in while they were still in PDL so they could deflect...sorry I mean help the PJ deal with the sighting.


 Several months later, once they were sure the cctv would have been destroyed, they were able to give the Smith sighting a bit more credit knowing that without cctv backup there was no proof it was Gerry. ….they didnt think about the buttons on the trousers.


The Smith family meanwhile had thought nothing of their sighting as it was in the wrong direction and seemed innocent.and went back to Ireland oblivious of the storm brewing in PDL. Once they became aware of it …...maybe because their friend Murat was in the frame and they knew it wasnt him they had seen.....they notified the police and it was arranged for them to return to PDL to make statements. It has to be considered that if it seemed like the Smith sighting was getting too close to the truth....buttons on trousers..., someone might have had a friendly chat and suggested that it might be beneficial to drop the subject. It was at this point Goncalo Amaral was removed because he was getting too close to the truth. The Smiths then become a bit confused about the sighting.


That is my theory...I dont think its too shabby.


Could the different heights of the Smith family have given them a different viewpoint and thereby different details to observe?


...As for why did the Smiths go from a restaurant to a bar?....'cause its fun?

I didnt know about Gerrys clothing, but youre right...it does appear to explain that too...

I did know about the earlier death, but im not trying to explain it away..its a given.

Silentscope wrote:Your Scenario seems to create more Risk for little Tactical gain.

If Gerry really was ‘Smithman’ and had been positively Identified - either by CCTV or other Witnesses, then the ‘Abduction’ would have been blown.


What intrigues me is why in the Forensic photography of the Apartment 5A a pair of Beige trousers is on the Bed, and a Black Jacket on the Sofa?

Someone apparently got changed in a hurry that night?

Someone who wanted those ‘Smithman type’ clothes to be noticed, and did not destroy or hide them - there was no need to - they had never been in contact with a dead body.

Someone who was wearing different clothing after the Alarm was raised perhaps? 

Different clothing to the start of the evening.

Why?

I agree its risky....but if your neck was on the line maybe you would take a risk too..... evryone said how quiet the streets were that time of year so maybe a low risk...and grainy old cctv would be unable to positvely identify some average joe.,,,,but it would reenforce the abduction ploy....they cry Abduction!!!  then low and behold there he is on cctv heading to the beach.....proof positive........would you really think ..oh, that looks like the father of the missing child?.....

I didnt know about the hurredly changed clothes, but maybe, having been seen by the smiths it was prudent for  noone to be wearing the same clothes as the cctv/smith man  for when the police turned up and would no doubt be interested in what everyone was wearing.  Good idea to get changed, bad idea to leave your old clothes lying about...should have been put in cupboard...but perhaps, as you say, was done in a hurry.....I think Im right in saying the timings had gone a bit wrong due to gerry  chatting to someone in the street....perhaps the alarm was raised a bit too early and ther just wasnt the time to think sensibly and put the old clothes away?   it wasnt so much that he needed to be wearing different clothes to the start of the evening, it was that he needed to be wearing diffeent clothes to the cctv and smith sighting for the benefit of the police.

crusader wrote:I believe the Smith family are telling the truth when they said they saw a man with a sleeping child.
They think it was Gerry, though they can't be 100% sure.
So it was either a man who was innocently seen with a child, who incidently has never come forward to say it was him, or it was Gerry or someone who looked like him.
If it wasn't an innocent man seen with a child, was it an abductor or was it Gerry or someone who looked like him.
If it was Gerry, he was taking a hell of a risk of not being seen by someone from the Ocean club.
We know a lot of the childcare staff lived local and indeed were in the nearby pub at that time.
If, as some believe, Madeleine died earlier in the week, why would there be any need to be walking around the streets with her on the Thursday.
All the facts lead to Madeleine dying in 5a and no abduction.

Yes its risky...but their neck was on the line....they had to try and make the police believe that she had been abducted....whatever happened to her, it was earlier in the week and she had already been moved away.  This exercise, carrying a genuine sleeping child...ella... was designed to reenforce the abduction plan for the benefit of cctv so that when the police invstigated the "abduction" they would find the naughty abductor carrying the child to the beach ....case solved.....  Unfortuneately, being seen by the smiths, made plan A unworkable and they had to resort to plan B and try and keep police off the scent of cctv or the smiths...

crusader wrote:Hi Paddingtom welcome to the forum.
Can you give a link to the cctv you refer to.

thankyou for your kind welcome.

Im terribly sorry...I dont think I have explained myself very well.     My theory relies on there being cctv cameras dotted around Praia de Luz,  The object of the exercise was to have them record the image of a naughty "abductor" carrying a blonde child towards the beach.    When they raised the alarm and insisted shed been stolen...the police would naturallt want to look at all the local cctv and when they did, there would be the abductor carrying the child towards the beach....it would confirm what they were saying.. 

 think of it like, god forbid your house was bugled but when it was and you reported it, the police would look at all the local cctv and would hopefully see a chap running away from your house carrying a sack with SWAG written on it.  Bingo....there is the burgler, they then see him getting in to a car and read the reg plate and have arrested him by the morning.   do you see where Im coming from ?

Obviously, as I say, once the smiths had seen him, it was far too likely that he could be identified so they had to abandon the attempt at getting an "abductor" seen on cctv and instead tried to direct all searches in completely the opposite direction praying that the brits could distract the pj from seeing any incriminating cctv and also discredit the smith sighting.

I saw somewhere that Goncalo Amaral stated that he was sad that his officers were too late to get a crucial cctv tape before it was overwritten.....maybe that would have had a naughty abductor on it....

Whether any other cctvs have been released, I dont know....I certainally havent seen then if so.

Hopefully I have made myself a little clearer, but if not, let me know and I will try and explain myself better...or if anyone else grasps what Im saying and wants to explain it better, please do....I wont be offended....I just want to get the theory out there for everyone to consider.

youre right Silentscope...the trousers were crucial....If I remember correctly, it was the young daughter of the Smith family that volunteered the buttons on the trousers.....youd have to be very lucky to prime a child with that information beforehand and expect her to relay it correctly....it says to me that she was telling the truth.

thankyou for your comments..it all helps to get things in order.

I wonder if Ella could have been wearing her own pjs - long sleeved; perhaps her parents werent keen on having maddies....also meant changing her before going out and then changing her again once they were back....

The thing thats got me going now is why do they keep bringing the subject up?...you would think that knowing she wasnt coming back, they would hope that it all dies down after a few weeks and they could get on with their lives....but no, its still in the news all these years later....from the off they intended to keep it in the papers for as long as possible...... the only idea I can come up with is that it is a money spinner......the great british public started contributing immediately and there is always the annual anniversary (imminent) to get it back in the papers......whenever its flagging they find a german paedophile to put it back in the papers....why?.......what are they doing with the money?  obviusly funding all those involved, but what is the main reason for wanting to keep the money rolling in,,,it obviously isnt being given to childrens charities......why are they trying to keep this money spinner going?    any ideas?

Silentscope wrote:Because the MSM is dying out, and in their efforts to Survive, they will Print any old Trash like reheated Coffee to keep themselves Financially afloat..?

MM is the new MM....

Madeleine McCann -> Meghan Markle