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.