Smithman theory

You will need to find out who that was, and which Car they used to Prove your Theory.

I wish you Luck.

So do I........

If, as some people believe, me not being one of them, Madeleine died on 29th April, why would somebody be running around Praia da Luz on the Thursday, (3rd May)with either Madeleine or another child pretending to be Madeleine at 10pm just when the alarm was being raised?

Hi Crusader,

Carrying a child (ella) was for the benefit of cctv and cctv only....it was crucial there were no human witnesses....   and it had to be done at the same time as the alarm was being raised.    Theres no point in doing it the day before or an hour before...the timing on the cctv had to backup the timing of the abduction....  Kate shouts "abduction"...low and behold on cctv a few minutes before is an "abducor".....the timing had to match........

As Ive said, the unexpected and unwanted smith sighting blew their plan out of the water and they then had to do everything they could to stop the police seeing the CCTV .

So what was it that they did to ‘Stop the Police’ from seeing the CCTV?

What could they have done?

The Footage was not ‘Lost’ or Stolen.

It was written over Automatically.

The PJ were just too late.

Hi Silentscope

They used delaying tactics.....If all had gone to plan and gerry hadnt been seem by anyone, Jane would have said she saw the "adbductor going towards the beech" the police would have immediately seized the cctv on the beach route..  and there for all to see would have been an "adbuctor" heading towards the beach......case solved.

The fact that gery  was seen by the smiths meant they had to abandon plan A...so Jane said she saw the adbuctor going in totally the opposite direction........  the police immediately seized the cctv on that route instead ......when no adbuctor was found, they had to go thru normal police procedures which eventually meanst getting to the crucial cctv camera....but by then it was too late, it was overwriitem........jane was trying to keep them away from the crucial cctv with her delaying tactics for long enough for the crucial cctv to be overwritten......it worked........

It's a lot more likely that Gerry would be seen by people than by a working CCTV camera.
How could Jane be sure that the camera they had chosen to spot Gerry was working?


In my opinion, if Madeleine had died earlier in the week, there would be no need for anyone from the group to do anything on the 3rd apart from "finding Madeleine gone" and raising the alarm.
There was no need for them to prove anything.
If however she died earlier on the 3rd, it's quite possible that it was Gerry the Smith's saw.

Hi Crusader,

In my opinion the route was deliberately chosen because it was quiet..there was a more direct route but it was busier... it was early in the season too....I believe the smiths were the only people that saw this event, so without them, he would not have been seen and Plan A would have worked.........the smiths were the event that changed everything.
As for knowing the cctv was working, I guess thay had to hope it was.
My theory relies on her earlier death and the cctv being used to backup their assertion she had been taken.....it showed they were telling the truth......also as Ive just said, Jane was going to immediately alert them to the abductor heading towards the beach so they woul dseize the cctv immediately and there he would be...

If she died on 3rd, the smiths could have seen gerry with maddie.....but personally I dont think that was the case...

.I think maddie was long gone by 3rd and gerry was doing a dummy run to backup their story........  I understand just saying she was missing would have been crucial, but having cctv showing it and pushing the focus to the beach would have been very helpful........

So, if Gerry came back and told Jane he was seen by a group of people, why would Jane then have to tell the police she saw a man with a child walking away from 5a?
Plan A was dead in the water and there was a real witness to a man carrying a child around 10-pm.
Once Gerry had been seen, all bets were off and it made Jane look like a liar to say she also saw a man with a child at somewhere around 9-pm.

It could not have happened that way because the written Timelines already said that Tanner was going to sell ‘Tannerman’ to the PJ later.

Hi Crusader,

It was exactly because gerry was seen that she said she saw the abductor going in the opposite direction. They were desperate to keep the police away from seeing the beach route cctv and also giving too much credit to the smith sighting when it was reported...... As you say, plan A had to be abandoned because of the smiths........they had to direct all attention in the opposite direction....

“nothing to see over there...it was this way......”

Hi Silentscope,

The original plan was for Jane to sell Tannerman going towards the beach....and there he would be on the beach route cctv.... Because the smiths rocked up they had to adandon plan A and she now had to sell Tannerman going in totally the opposite direction.

I get that everyone thinks my theory is out there..so do I ....I have spent ages trying to come up with a better explanation. It seems to me that there are 3 schools of thought.

1. It was gerry carrying maddie
   
2. It was some random geezer and his child
   
3. The smiths were lying.
   

No. 1. a) Why would Gerry carry a corpse through Pdl at exactly the same time as the alarm is being raised and everyone is put on high alert for someone carrying a child.
b) There was a perfectly adequate sports bag available if you needed to carry a corpse somewhere.
c) Youve also got the problem of the enormous amount of work that had to be achieved beforehand....thoroughly cleanse the flat, get your stories straight, move the furniature around, open the shutters , wipe the phones, etc etc......

No 2. If it was a random geezer, youve got a few problems with that too.
a) Why has he never come forward
b) The buttons on the trousers
c)Incredibly similar description to gerry and maddie
e) why did the mccanns try to bury the sighting for months on end....Surely for optics sake they would be all over it like a rash

No. 3 The reason people seem to think the Smiths were lying was to rescue Murat.

If so, the conversation would have gone something like this....

Dad: who wants to go on a trip to Portugal
Daughter/son: Me daddy me
Dad: Right, Theres only one condition...youll have to say we saw a man carrying a child.
Daughter/son: But we didnt daddy
Dad: yes, I know that but we must help our friend whose got himself into a bit of bother.
Daughter/son: But you always tell us we mustn tell lies daddy
Dad: Its alright when its to the police. And dont worry, Ill give you a description and youll have plenty of time to learn it before filing your report.
Daughter/son: Righto daddy . Whats the description?

Really?.....Would you ask your children to lie to the police to help your friend?...Surely you would do it alone so as not to burden anyone else with the problem, especially your family. Also the more people you involved the more likely they would forget something and contradict your story.

Youve also got the sheer good luck that you happened to have been in the right place at the right time to pretend you saw someone (bar bill backed up their presence)....for me, its too far fetched and incredibly irrisponsible to involve your kids in a whopper like this.

Yes, its unfortunate that they didnt come forward sooner but that could have been for several reasons 1. They genuinely did not think their sighting was relevant because all the focus was in the opposite direction
2 Being Irish and having an historical uneasy relationship with the police, their lack of trust of authority inclined them to stay out of it
[list=3][*]Maybe they are a private family and did not wish to join the circus.
[/list]

However, once Murat was in trouble they knew they had to do the right thing and come forward with their sighting.....Yes, it might well have been instigated by Murats arguido, but that doesnt prove they were lying. For me, rather than lying to save Murat, they were telling the truth because it was the right thing to do.

I rest my case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

It was Gerry carrying Madeleine

Tanner was briefed to lead the PJ in the wrong direction because she already knew that Gerry was going to use the route described by the Smiths later. Plausible?

It was some random Person carrying his own Child.

More likely, and the Sighting was then later ‘developed’ by Team McCann. Gerry however, could not have been in two places at once, so the PJ thought. However the PJ thought of the possibility that one of the Group could have ‘Escaped’ in the confusion with the body.

The Smiths were lying.

Martin Smith and Family were checked out by the police and seem to be genuine, caring people who thought whatever they saw could have been important enough to Report. The fact that they knew Murat was not the Person that they all saw was just a coincidence?

Madeleine was most likely removed ‘so swiftly’ after discovery earlier in the Week, that the Thursday night ‘Abduction’ scenario whether Dead or Alive becomes completely Ludicrous.

There was no ‘Panic’ reaction - it was all planned out in advance.

Hi Silentscope,

If it was gerry carrying maddie, how did they have time to do all the cover up jobs?

I struggle with them waiting for "confusion" to get rid of the body.....they would have done it much earlier

they may or may not have known murat well...to me its irrelevant...they finally decided to come forward becaus they didnt want the wrong man being fingered for something he didnt do.....good citizendhip...

I agree it all happened much earlier and maddie was long gione...so in theory the thursday night abduction scenario is pointless....however, I truly believe the Smiths saw something (as do the portugese police) so you are then back to my original options of it being maddie, a random geezer or gerry and Ella...all of which I have discussed on my previous post.....
Ive got no problem with you disagreeing with me, I know its an outrageous theory,,,but I cannot think of an alternative and noone else has been able to give me a sensible solution that fits all the facts...  I would loveit if they did.

I take it youre an earlier death and Smith lying sort of person>...thats fine......I respect your opinion, but I dont agree with it.

Since a certain ex Member has left you will find that the Forum is more about the exchange of ideas and views than following others ideas.

You are welcome to share your thoughts here.

You are Free to have your own opinion.

Maybe one day someone will come up with a real ‘Golden Nugget’ we can ALL agree on?

Peter Hyatt also has a different perspective.

Hi Silentscope,
I would be very interested to hear what you believe...earlier death and smiths lying?...if not, what?

thanks for video.....interesting....does this mean we are back to 3rd may removal or just whenever the removal was?

Hi Paddingtom, your views are as good as anyone elses seeing as nobody knows what realy happened.
My opinion for what it's worth is..
When David Payne called in on Kate who was in the shower, he found Madeline either dead or unconcious.
He went back to tell Gerry who then abandoned his tennis.
I think Jane Russ and Matt were setting the scene opening the shutters and window whilst pretending to check on the children.
I believe it was Gerry the Smiths saw, I think the whole idea was just to show someone running off with Madeleine, it was a risk he took being seen and identified.
All in my opinion only.

thankyou Crusader...vey interesting...havent heard the like before,,,I will add it to my options list and ponder its merits at my leisure....with a nice cup of tea,,,,

@ Paddingtom

The ‘Window’ of Time that Madeleine died for me personally still lies between Sunday afternoon and Wednesday morning.

The latest that the body of Madeleine McCann had to have been gone by was 22:00 on Thursday.

What time ‘it’ actually happened is unclear.

The Deletion of Kate and Gerry’s SMS traffic seems to be the most likely sign that something had happened that they later planned on covering up.

Tip: make a Calendar of that Week and put in all the arguments for and against something happening to Madeleine on each day.

Then you can decide yourself when something was most likely to have happened.

Hi Silentscope,   Ok, youve got a large window of opportunity there......thats actually a good tactic.....when someone cracks it, youll be able to say that is what you thought too!!!!...he he...

I have already got a sort of timeline that Im adding info to...probablly not as organised as it should be but time is not on my side at the mo ...will do my best to get it more organised when time allows......

It seems to me that the smith sighting is an enormous point of dispute ...What would have been great is if their statements could have been analysed for truthfulness....then we would at least have some guidance..... I suspect its not possible to do that because they are written more as if a policeman is writing the statements having spoken to the smiths,,,,,what a shame...

@ Silentscope and @ Paddington 

It is sad to see you struggling with whether the Smithman sighting is true. 

There are innumerable proofs on this forum that it was an utter invention from start to finish.

As has been pointed out years ago, the last known photo of Madeleine was at about 2.30pm Sunday 29th April, unless you count the 'Make-Up Photo' which may have been taken by persons unknown that afternoon.

Apart from that, there is no alleged verifiable 'sighting' of Madeleine after the Sunday afternoon; all claimed 'sightings' are either from the McCann Team and their allies, and therefore not independent, or so vague as to be useless, as Lizzie Hi-Ho Taylor pointed out years ago on this very forum.

You both, with respect, have turned a Nelsonian "blind eye" to the truth.

Hi Seedsofdoubt,

I agree with you that it happened much earlier in the week...29th is good for me..... but I do not agree that The Smiths lied.....

I have seen some posts here which folow that scenario, but they have not convinced me.....One was saying that  the smiths joined team mccann from december 2009 and the Mccans started promoting the sighting from dec 2007,,,,,, Ive stated many times that the mmccans initially tried to bury the Smith sighting......in my opinion, it was only after they were sure the incriminating cctv had been overwritten, that they felt able to promote the smith sighting....becaus it was beginning to look very suspicious that they wanted to bury it..... I suspect it was a reluctant promotion because the smiths have maintained to this day that they think it  was gerry...any "collusion" with team mccann might have been a willingness to help just incase their belief it was gerry was wrong, and I suspect  the "collusion" was probably emphasised by team mccann, more than was actually happening......

If you have got some specific information about why the smiths are lying, please tell me...Ive read everything I can find and none of it is convincing for me...  tell me what makes you believe they lied?

You may find this interesting Paddingtom, Pat deals with the Tanner sighting and the Smith sighting.
1:09:22 and 1:40:44, but the whole video is worth watching.

Hi Crusader,

thanks for that...I think Ive seen it before, but youre right, I will have another look.....I may be some time......  If I remember, Pat thinks it was Maddie....I dont....I think it  was Ella........anyway, thanks again for reminding me of it....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote..
There are innumerable proofs on this forum that it was an utter invention from start to finish.

With respect, there is no proof that the Smith sighting was invention, only opinion.

Hi Seedsofdoubt,  yes I get that..youre quite right to point it out......

What is your personal opinion that convinces you they were lying?...Im desperate to find someone that can convince me...

sorry, I mean Crusader...youre right to point it out...   what is your stance on smiths and reasons?

I don't think the Smiths have anything to gain by lying, by all accounts, they are a normal family and even the police officer who was in contact with them in Ireland vouched for them.
They were a little late reporting to the police what they saw, they obviously didn't attach much importance to it at the time, as soon as they realised they could possibly have seen the abductor, they contacted the police, I get that.
The photofit they gave looked like Gerry, they believe it was Gerry they saw that night, ok they can't say it was 100% definately Gerry but they believe it was.
I believe them when they say they saw a man with a sleeping child hurrying down the alleyway around 10pm, they even spoke to him and found it strange he didn't answer.
I'm much more inclined to believe what they said they saw rather than Jane Tanner.
They gave a descripton of what the man was wearing from memory, when Jane Tanner said she had seen the man carrying the child, she said it was too dark to see much detail, yet in subsiquent statements, she went into more detail of the man hair colour and length, what he was wearing, colours etc and even his shoes. 
And all that after just a glimpse of him.

What is most likely. Gerry was actually carrying the body of Madeleine, who had died at least 2 days earlier, to a pre-arranged location. That location was an apartment or villa to the West of PDL, the less popular part where very few if any properties would be let in early May. The body was put in a freezer and removed several weeks later. Realising he’d been spotted just before 10pm the T9 had to manufacture the disappearance being discovered at the very precise time (when all other timings were vague) of 10pm. The hue and cry was actually raised later, as testified by the neighbour upstairs (10.30), consistent with the first police call at 10.40. The false Tanner sighting was to convince police the “abduction” happened 40mins earlier so the the person seen by Smiths could not have been the abductor. The route used by Gerry had no CCTV on it, which is why he went that way and not the more direct route

Sounds plausible but I don't believe Madeleine was ever in a freezer and then brought out later.
Why would they not put her in a freezer 2 day's or whenever before and use another sleeping child on the 3rd?
I just cannot believe the freezer and thawing out in the hire car scenario.