Tuesday, 30 March 2010

The Smith Sighting

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.

59 comments:

  1. Fantastic, brilliant...I knew it....Well blow me down...I see it there can be no other way...Thank-you a million thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only witnesses who claim Dr.Gerald Mccann was in the Restaurant are the tapas.The ONLY one to see the abductor was a member of the tapas. The Mccanns have gone out of their way showing us abductors and yet the one true sighting that could clear their name they choose to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Uffffff, ia dizer que iria ler amanhã só. Mas vejo os comentários....logo vejo o que consigo.

    Maria

    Text: passe palavra ataque de hackers a blogues. Guardem cópia de segurança.

    Desculpe escrever em Pt. Espero que consigam tarduzir.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So let me get this straight in my head. They had a witness, several witnesses.But Martin Smith did not know of the sighting until the following morning when his daughter rang him from Ireland.

    Jane Tanner plants the seed in the head of police that night. She says no more. They wait. Witness does not come forward. Press release again emphasise a child with bare feet and show the pyjamas. The EXACT pyjamas, Amelie said so.

    Jane as close as she dare describes McCann including height. Mccann in his blog changes the height of Janes sighting. Now why would he do that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gracias Maria, No te preocupé tengo una copia de segurida.

    Besos

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.the3arguidos.info/post25912.html?sid=511976bac49bd384a8fadc16e85c618d#p25912

    Gerry and Kate looking a little frazzled around the edges.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.the3arguidos.info/topic100.html

    Family Smith Sightings

    ReplyDelete
  8. If it was'nt Madeleine there is only one child it could have been. Jane Tanners, explaining her worry 'It was a cold night and her feet were cold, I remember thinking this was not a good parent'

    She got that bit right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon...

    Don't give the game away... yet... ehehehe.

    But, yes, you might, just might, have something there...

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSxREovLpis

    Behind the mask

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1m049Zcob4&feature=related


    There are too many questions. The case must be re opened.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.the3arguidos.info/post25919.html#p25919?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    O'Brian, Janes parter and his interview.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WTF

    O'Brian read Tanners statement to refresh his mind.

    Reply “It says, ‘I have been given the opportunity to refresh my memory from the statement made from Jane TANNER’, she is not actually legally my wife we are just, we are just partners, , ‘and I’ve been allowed to see the documents’. I asked to see her document because my original statement to the PJ, made reference, I think for the Monday to the Wednesday especially, to Jane’s and it was not written in any detail in mine. Does that make sense?”

    ReplyDelete
  14. What is the significance of the photo with the drain cover?

    ReplyDelete
  15. From O 'Brians statement



    I have this recollection that on Tuesday it was the first night we’d all been together, the nine of us, actually, present”.
    00.42.23 1578 “Yes”.
    Reply “However Jane actually thinks that it was, Tuesday, it was probably Tuesday night, so we’re, we’re not entirely sure. I don’t know if that’s going to be very relevant, but I thought it was Monday and Jane thinks it might have been Tuesday”.
    1578 “You say ‘Either Monday or Tuesday’?”
    Reply “Yeah, so as long as, well”.
    1578 “You could cross-out ‘either’ and put in ‘possibly’. ‘Possibly Monday’ and cross-out ‘or Tuesday’?”
    Reply “I don’t know, maybe I’m just being fussy. I mean, it was either Monday or Tuesday, me and Jane can’t quite agree on that one, we thought. Just leave it as it is”.
    1578 “If we leave it as it is. We do say ‘Either Monday or Tuesday’, don’t we?”


    xxxxxx

    Read that fellow Bloggers the first night we had all been together...But he is not sure which night...

    ReplyDelete
  16. It all looks like a pre-arranged cover-up of a scenario that was not originally planned. Could it be that a plan was prepared BEFORE the McCanns landed in PDL?? and the whole thing went unfortunately WRONG!!
    This what we hear and see seems to be a last minute improvised scenario that was not properly rehearsed and agreed by all parties. This can only be attributed when an original plan goes wrong.

    Apart from the McCanns and their blunders, what I really would like to knbow "WHAT HAS THIS ORDINARY DR. FROM SCOTLAND, IRELAND OR WHEREVER, HAS WITH OUR PRESENT GOVERNMENT, TO COMMAND SUCH A POWER TO HAVE A SPOKESMAN SUCH AS CLARENCE MITCHELL AS THE GO-BETWEEN!!! That to me is an enigma!! Once this question is solved, them I'm sure we can come to the REAL TRUTH.

    I hope that someone can enlighten me.. THANKS

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nota Bene: ''And if you ever have seen a British family on holiday...''The Smith family are Irish, not British.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The drain cover just happens to be in the road. It is the arrows showing directions of the man seen with child and the crossing of the
    Smith family that is important and how close they were to this child.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon if we are going to nit pick Jerald Mccann has said its the stiff British upper lip that keeps him going. He is not British and I am insulted that he even suggests it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First I heard that he's not British...he's from Glasgow as far as the public know. What info do you have otherwise?

      Delete
  20. The bumbling PJ eh, seems they right all along.

    the Mccanns thought they were sooooo clever

    ReplyDelete
  21. I read somewhere Kennedy and Metodo 3 threatened Mr.Smith I can now see why. The man must be terrified.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I read with interest in your last article ,Cadaver was found on clothes bought by Kate after Madeleine vanished.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Robert Deller the Public Prosecutor of Aachen was informed of a possible framing of Raymond Hewlett in the McCann case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It beats me why they banned the book. We are reading the files online.

    Employee Kingston Hospital. Surrey.

    ReplyDelete
  25. bravo to the employee at Kingston Hospital...

    slowly but surely the alternative version of events on May 3rd to the McCann's account will become common knowledge

    ReplyDelete
  26. So, then we must assume that Gerry WAS NOT at the table in the Tapas bar whe Kate come in screaming her head off "they've taken her"...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not sure but is'nt of of the tapas a Doctor at Kingston Hospital?

    ReplyDelete
  28. A nice day to all!

    Iron. I thank You= your´s words.Kiss.

    So much to read! I copy to translate and to undestand better.

    Maria

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think Matthew Oldfield is an endocrinologist at Kingston Hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/threat_to_kingston_hospital/5011137.Threat_to_Kingston_Hospital__The_100_GPs__surgeons_and_consultants_deciding_the_future_of_Kingston_s_healthcare

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is a difference between Jane Tanner's sighting and the Smiths' sighting. Tanner's 'abductor' holds the child 'horizontal', the man that the Smiths saw, holds the child 'vertical' (like Gerry McCann holds Sean when he gets out of the aircraft.

    Is it possible the picture of the man in the Jane Tanner's sighting shows a child in the 'horizontal' position on purpose to discredit the Smiths' sighting?

    What was first, the Smiths' sighting or the picture of the Jane Tanner sighting?

    M.NL

    ReplyDelete
  32. Good morning Anon and yes ...but if you look at the Documentary Mccann produced in PDL...You will NOTICE that the Smith sighting abduction has been changed to also carrying the child in a horizontal position...Martin Smith was specific, the childs head was resting on the mans shoulder...Why would Mccann change this witnesses statement?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Urgent, unscheduled and emergency care (16 people)

    - Andrew Neil Care of the Elderly Kingston Hospital and NHS Wandsworth

    - Matthew Oldfield Acute Medicine Consultant Kingston Hospital NHS Trust



    ----

    Kingston Hospital is a disgrace, it is filthy and they are understaffed. In the ward my mother was in if patients were too sick to eat their food the nures would just come and take the food away...Thats how it is run...

    If its underthreat, not before time.. They still have the system of mixed wards...although they deny it...but it is true. Men and women have to see each other in a state of undress..If my sister or I did not go and feed my mother should would not have been fed.

    That is Kingston Hospital in a nut shell.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think that Tanner's child has brown hair and Mr. Smith described the child he saw as having blond hair.

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/03/little-girl-mysteriously-disappears-in.html

    Mexicos Maddie...child disappears from home..Parents and nannies questioned because of contradictory statements.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tanner changes height of 'Abductor'

    Jane Tanner claimed she saw the two men but that was a later addition to her first statement and continued to guarantee that, at the top of the street, she saw a man with a child in his arms. The entire abduction theory depends on her and yet she left a vomiting child alone in her apartment while she sat drinking with friends at the Tapas Bar (and according to the waiters statements never left the table all night).

    Jane’s Tanner statements have changed until now, two times, first account was: The man, looking Caucasian, was wearing beige trousers, black shoes and was covered in a thick jacket. He was slim, his height was 5'7" and with dark short straight hair. According to her words, he was carrying "a child or an object that could have been taken as a child wrapped in a blanket" or “bundle of clothes”. He was going towards the church.

    In her second report in BBC Panorama’s documentary she morphed the description of the abductor, from a white man to a 5'8'' tall swarthy Mediterranean looking man with “quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair”; the vagueness description of the bundle was changed to the certainty of a girl in pink pyjamas .

    Jane, who socialized with the girl on a daily basis, did not recognize her though she could memorize the details of the alleged kidnapper. He was around 35 - 40 years, brown skinned, wearing beige trousers, a dark coat and black formal shoes (though JT didn’t see his face she was able to get the “abductor’s” age?). The “abductor” this time was heading towards Murat's home.

    According to her statement, the child was wearing pink pyjamas, seemed to be asleep and was barefoot. This was the detail that she found the strangest “…and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up”.

    That night, after Kate discovered the disappearance of her daughter (and after Jane supposedly confirmed with another friend that Maddie was wearing a pyjamas of that colour), Jane Tanner made no mention of it to anyone. “I did not want to worry Kate even further”, she later said.

    However as proven here, the lights that illuminate that street are made of sodium, Praia da Luz uses sodium vapour street lamps, which give light only under an orange spectrum as explained more scientifically here.

    Street lights are a very special kind of yellow light in that they only produce a very narrow set of colours. So rather than giving out a bit of every colour of the rainbow (as with white light), only yellow-orange wavelengths are given off. The overall outcome if there are no wavelengths of light to reflect back is essentially monochrome. In that orangey tone light, at that distance, she could not have discerned either the pattern or the colour of the pyjamas the child was wearing.

    In addition, the pyjama bottoms are white with a tiny pink floral pattern, have 3/4 length, that is almost knee length (as shown in the picture). Therefore if Madeleine was being carried the way Jane Tanner declared the pyjamas would probably go even higher than the knee's line thus making it impossible for Jane Tanner to see the colour of those tiny flowers.

    *Note: The Forensic Sketch of Madeleine's probable abductor was commissioned by the McCanns.
    Source(s):
    http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12…
    2 years ago

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Anon ..Just checked the Smiths statements again..

    Martin Smith said the childs hair was blonde to medium hued hair...

    Aoife Smith...said the child had light/light brown, straight long hair to the neck.


    So no not blonde...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sorry, can someone explain to a thicko why G McCann would want to be seen carrying a child at a time he allegedly had an alibi in the Tapas Restaurant and at the same time that his wife was screaming "They've taken her!" I know I've missed something, but I'm not sure what.

    ReplyDelete
  39. To : The Wondered

    I also search to find a very good logical reason why the McCann’s should get all this government support.

    I came up with this conclusion

    Gerry was trying out new drugs using his children as guinea pigs on behalf of a very powerful UK or US pharmaceutical company. It is also normal for these companies to send doctors on freebies in order to tout their drugs.
    Had this been the case and had the experiment gone wrong it could have resulted in the death of the child.
    This would mean either the collapse of the said company with millions of pounds at stake or at the very least a stink they could ill afford.

    Hence the government involvement and protection.

    The body had to be disposed of, there would be too many traces of the drug left.

    So Gerry gets all assistance necessary to hide, dispose and cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Doctor uses his children as Guinea pigs for drugs? Medical research doesn't work like that! Gerry is a cardiologist; can you suggest what drugs he would be using or testing on his children in that capacity and why?

      Delete
  40. http://twitpic.com/1c6kdd

    Gerry Mccann and the Smith Sighting

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4Ck61Favg&feature=related

    Gerry tells how the 'abductor' almost got caught? BY WHOM?????

    By Jane Sandra,,,,by Jane...

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DAYS_1_to_50.htm


    Gerry McCanns blogs

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ok, I stand corrected, Ironside. I did not go to the statements, I went with what I read in G.Amaral's book. In fact, come to think of it, judging by the many photos available, Madeleine's hair seemed to cover several degrees or shades, from dark blond to light brown, unlike her sister's, who has very blond hair.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi Anon...I know I have a very irritating habit...detail...lol

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ironside.

    "Gerry tells how the 'abductor' almost got caught? BY WHOM?????
    By Jane Sandra,,,,by Jane..."

    It is the way Gerry says 'by Jane',
    as if he wins the victory on Sandra's question. No sign of regret that Jane didn't catch the 'abductor', very strange.

    M.NL

    ReplyDelete
  46. Archimedes. I think your conclusion (powerful pharmaceutical company) is very plausible.

    I think the McCanns are too confident, they know what happened to Madeleine and they know that she will never be found.

    I think they were trying out a new medicine on Madeleine, because imo she was suffering from a disease.
    Maybe they made themselves believe that it was for Madeleine's own good.

    M.NL

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi M.NL...yes and whats even stranger Jane has never mentioned this fact herself.

    ReplyDelete
  48. http://twitpic.com/1c6fe2

    ReplyDelete
  49. Food for thought M.NL

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Textusa - thanks for latest.
    I'd like to read back your opinion on the Smith sighting with regard to the delay - are yo able to provide the name of the post. I could look through them all but if you could name the specific post it would be of help

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 20 Oct 2014 10:59:00,

      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/01/textusas-phone-hacking-scandal-1.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/02/textusas-phone-hacking-scandal-2.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/02/textusas-phone-hacking-scandal-3.html
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/02/textusas-phone-hacking-scandal-4.html

      Delete
  51. Unpublished reader at 3 Feb 2015, 17:30:00,

    Sorry - we can't make head nor tail of your theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Textusa,

      Thanks for the reply - I enjoy your blog immensely holding great respect for your research.

      I too have researched this case, since day 3 - early jogging, silos of information coupled with some behavioural inconsistencies drew me in very early.

      My point, sorry if badly expressed, was to highlight the various possibilities why this individual may not have wanted to be seen. (Myself, I work off the assumption it was GMcC)

      The bullet points in my previous note were a listing of some of the variables that may have given him little choice but to continue a route passed the Smiths. A list indicating possible pressures requiring him to continue down Rue Da Escola P.

      However, you may of course not agree, all I am discussing here are possibilities.
      The only 'fact' we really have to base our assumptions on this sighting is: The person passed by the Smiths at that spot on Rue Da Escola P. No other facts about his location are known. No other facts exist, yet, around the route taken to get there, (roads or scrubland). Nor are there facts around the route taken afterward.

      It's not so much my theory, but the considerations I have used when analysing it -and is open to much debate. as you know, there are only limited facts to which interpret a deduction and build a theory.
      My actual theory on the entire case is as your own, or close enough.


      Many thanks Textusa - I look forward to Friday's addition as always.

      GP.

      Delete
  52. Does that make more sense, Textusa?

    GP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GP,

      We have covered this issue quite extensively in various posts in the blog.

      We see no reason why Smithman didn't avoid the Smiths and many that tell us the meeting was intentional on his part.

      Just a correction, you're not correct when you say "The only 'fact' we really have to base our assumptions on this sighting is: The person passed by the Smiths at that spot on Rue Da Escola P. " It wasn't one spot but three (as documented in files) and separated by almost 30 metres.

      The first about 20 metres inside the Rua da Escola Primária, the second at the crossing of this street with Rua 25 de Abril and the last location wasn't even inside Rua da Escola Primária but at the top of the stairs that lead to the Dolphin/Kelly's area.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/speed.html

      As you say in our post "Intentional - Not Debatable" we have no doubts the encounter was intentional.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2013/11/intentional-not-debatable-fact.html

      Delete
  53. Textusa,

    I have read those excellent posts you refer to, respectfully I do not agree with the certainty assigned to some of the assumptions being made in them.

    For example - The mathematics applied to the distances between the group of '9' and Smithman at various intervals (escape routes) on his again, assumed, journey down that street from 100 mtrs do not follow a most likely rule of relative motion.

    The Physics Textusa?

    I think the Smiths moved faster than that, and I have based it on their statements.
    A group of 9 who were able to leave a restaurant, get to a bar 50 metres away, some have have 1 drink, pay, leave the bar, and get the to sighting 50 metres away, all in 20-25 mins - a pretty mobile bunch, don't hang about, Come on kids, flights to catch tomorrow.

    Yet by your assumptions they are barely able to move up a hill while Smithman's covers 90 mtrs? Why? - Because some of this is uphill perhaps? Then I would ask how could Smithman see 9 of them from 100 mtrs away if they were downhill from his perspective?

    And Why were they always a group of 9 from every distance mentioned? Why not, say, first 3, then 4, then 9 as they emerge? - some of the physics you have deduced has taken some liberty - and we arrive at tit for tat counter points, wouldn't you agree? - Because none of it is certainty and is in fact, quite debatable. Because like you, Textusa, I have just made assumptions here too.


    I respect your opinion, that's why we're all here, engaged in healthy exchange. It's why I read your posts; they make me challenge my own deductions, keep me well read :)

    Keep up the great work.

    GP

    P.S. - Sorry, I say 'spot' because it references Smithman's only placing that night in relation his ENTIRE, unknown route taken to get there. Had I have been referring to the Smith Sighting within itself, then I wouldn't have.

    ReplyDelete
  54. GP,

    We haven't said at what speed the Smiths were walking, because we don't know.

    What we have done, in our "Speed" was to clearly explains that we referenced their speed with that of Smithman's. That way, no need to know the value of the speed but only how they compare with each other. That and only that determine the distance between them at each point in time.

    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/speed.html

    The calculations, or physics, are shown in the post.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa