Friday, 29 November 2013

Intentional - Not Debatable Fact

Crimewatch last night was like watching a re-run of Team McCann in Lisbon for the Libel Trial: weaker then the anticipated weak.

A public display of a publicly known humiliation that SY is undergoing epitomised by an evidently embarrassed Andy Redwood.

Why no mention of 2-Face, when just in Oct 14 2013 he was UK Crimewatch's biggest star?

In the Maddie Affair, there are things that are open for debate. Others aren't.

An example of something that is debatable: did Jane Tanner see the man that has become known as the Bundleman?

We say she did but most say she didn't. It's debatable. We accept and respect that many don't accept our opinion and we can only hope they return the favour.

An example of something that is not debatable: was Maddie abducted? It's a fact she wasn't.

But what proof do we have? The sheer impossibility of it happening?

What if the abductor used one of the doors instead of the window? It would mean the parents lied but the abduction would have been possible, wouldn't it?

What makes it a not debatable fact that there was no abduction is all the surmounting evidence to the contrary. Namely, but not exclusively, what the forensics have shown.

This post has the objective of proving that the Smith Sighting was intentional and that fact is not debatable.

Let's first understand where it all happened. The Rua da Escola Primária:

We have signalled, from left to right, an alleyRua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, an unnamed streetstairs and the 3 locations of Smith's 3 groups, Smith 1, Smith 2 and Smith 3:

We know the sighting happened around 22:00, so at night, and we also know that the street was well illuminated by street lamps:

What we propose to do is to have you walk with me, using Google Map street view images, in Rua da Escola Primária:

I will incorporate the only possible character for the Smith Sighting to have happened by chance: a man, in his late 30s early 40s, carrying the body of a dead young girl, Maddie's body.

original picture

Scenario - I left apartment 5A via front door (parking area). Turned left on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva and walked all the way to the end. There, turned left on Rua Primeiro de Maio and immediately turned right on Rua da Escola Primária. This street curves first to the left then to the right and finally bifurcates.

Photo 1
Photo 1

I'm just before that Rua da Escola Primária's final left turn. I've walked approximately 200 m (218 yds or 8.4 tennis courts) holding the dead body of a young girl.

Have crossed with no one and haven't been seen by anyone either.

I have decided to turn left down Rua Escola Primária to continue my walk.

There's absolutely no reason for me not to do so.

Photo 2
Photo 2

I've passed the left turn and am heading down Rua da Escola Primária. Remain unseen so continue not to have a reason not to proceed.

However, I would say that here I would be able to hear in the silence of the night the noise made by the 9 Smiths, namely by the 3 teenagers.

I won't state that as fact, just raising it as a possibility.

Photo 3a
Photo 3a (detail of Photo 3)

For us, the key moment.

The moment I see Smith 1, Smith's son and wife, at the end of the street.

They are just a little bit down the road from the person with a black top in the picture above.

For those saying that there was no way I would see them let me remind you of just 2 small details.

The first one is that the distance between us is just 122 m (133 yds or 5.1 tennis courts) with no obstacles in between. Completely unobstructed view.

A football pitch is 90 - 120 m (100 - 130 yds). The couple is at a distance in which a goalkeeper sees another on the playing field.

The second detail is that I have a corpse in my arms. I have committed a serious crime, even if manslaughter, and am fully aware that I'm NOW committing the crime of obstructing justice so you bet I am very, very attentive in watching out for anyone seeing me while I'm doing it.

All my senses are switched on pitch high.

At this distance I probably can't tell if they're a couple or two people of the same gender, but do I care? It's someone, that's all that matters. I have a dead body in my hands. Do I want to be seen?

When one is stealing a cookie from the jar and one hears someone coming down the corridor does one care who that someone is or is one simply worried that it's someone?

I haven't stolen a cookie. I have a dead body in my arms.

But if you say that it's too far away, we'll respect that. Just make up your mind as to from where, as of this point, do you think you will see the Smiths.

Photo 3
Photo 3 - 122 metres

So, as I said, I am at 122 m (133 yds or 5.1 tennis courts) from Smith 1. My head starts to race as to what I can do to avoid contact.

Maybe I'm not aware yet but I have at 44 m (48 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) an escape route by the alley on the right, at 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) an escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, at 73 m (80 yds or 3.1 tennis courts) an escape route by unnamed street on the right and at 103 m (112 yds or 4.3 tennis courts) an escape route by stairs on the left .

Instead of following my natural instincts, I decide not to turn back and to continue.

Photo 4
Photo 4 - 112 metres

I am now at 112 m (122 yds or 4.7 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 34 m (37 yds or 1.4 tennis courts) from escape route by the alley on the right, 53 m (58 yds or 2.2 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 93 m (101 yds or 3.9 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

As I have decided to continue instead of turning back and  there's nothing new to decide, I decide to continue.


Photo 5
Photo 5 - 102 metres

I am 102 m (111 yds or 4.3 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 24 m (26 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from escape route by alley on the right, 43 m (47 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 53 m (58 yds or 2.2 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 83 m (90 yds or 3.5 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

Same situation as in photo 4 with the difference that I now can see both 2 nearby escape routes: alley and Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz.

So I continue.

Photo 6
Photo 6 - 89 metres

I am 89 m (97 yds or 3.7 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 11 m (12 yds or 0.5 tennis courts), from escape route by alley on the right, 30 m (33 yds or 1.3 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 40 m (44 yds or 1.7 tennis courts) and from escape route by unnamed street on the right 70 m (76 yds or 2.9 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left .

Photo 7
Photo 7 - 82 metres

I am 82 m (89 yds or 3.4 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 4 m (4 yds or 0.2 tennis courts), from escape route by alley on the right, 23 m (25 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 33 m (36 yds or 1.4 tennis courts) and from escape route by unnamed street on the right 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left .

I'm pratically on escape route via alley but from this point I can also see that Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz might be a better option as it allows for my movement to go naturally unnoticed by the Smiths.

By the way, this is the location where first Smithman appears in the Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting:

Notice how clearly you can see the white mini-van at the end. And the details of the shadows reflected on the wall behind it. Also count the number of cars that Smithman had to pass to be where he is.

Back to me being Smithman. Even in the unlikelyhood that they have noticed me, there's little they can tell the cops that will incriminate me in any way.

So I continue.

Photo 8
Photo 8 - 67 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and am 67 m (73 yds or 2.8 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 8 m (9 yds or 0.3 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 27 m (29 yds or 1.1 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 48 m (52 yds or 2.0 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

This means that I have opted not to use my first option to escape: the alley where I could hide. This is a fact.

Photo 9
Photo 9 - 59 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and am at escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and am 59 m (64 yds or 2.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 19 m (21 yds or 0.8 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 40 m (44 yds or 1.7 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

To claim that I cannot see a crowd of 9 at a distance of 60 m in front of me is absolutely ludicrous.

To claim that I haven't seen a crowd of 9 at a distance of 60 m in front of me while walking with a dead body in my arms is just not realistic.

Plus, I not only see them at this distance as I can also tell that the people aren't grouped together but spread out.

I may not be able make out exactly how many people there are in front of me nor in exactly how many groups they are separated into but of one thing I'm certain and that is if I continue down the road it will mean multiple encounters with multiple witnesses.

To continue down Rua da Escola Primária can only mean one of 2 things. Either I'm fascinatingly stupid or I've decided to use escape route by unnamed street on the right.

Photo 10
Photo 10 - 42 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and am 42 m (46 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 2 m (2 yds or 0.1 tennis courts) from unnamed street on the right  and 23 m (25 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from the stairs on the left.

The fact that I am here means that I have opted not to use my second option (the most visible one) to escape: Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz to walk away from the Smiths. This is a fact.

I am left with the last reasonable option to sustain the thesis of an accidental encounter between me and the Smiths:  I have decided to use escape route by unnamed street on the right.

The stairs option is indeed still ahead of me but why use it if I just had a timely opportunity to head towards the direction of Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and didn't do that?

Basically the fact that I am at this point clearly says that I either use unnamed street on the right or I want to make contact with the Smiths.

Photo 11
Photo 11 - 36 metres

I’ve left behind escape route by the alley and escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, am at escape route by unnamed street, and am 36 m (39 yds or 1.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1 and from escape route by the stairs on the left 17 m (19 yds or 0.7 tennis courts).

This means that I have opted not to use my third option to escape: the unnamed street to walk away and hide from the Smiths. This is a fact.

I have decided against all reason and logic to head towards the Smiths.

Photo 12
Photo 12 - 24 metres

I have left behind the escape route by alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and escape route by unnamed street and am 24 m (26 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from Smith 1 and 5 m (5 yds or 0.2 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

At this point it is impossible, repeat IMPOSSIBLE, to not have seen the Smiths right in front of me.

As shown, I have not stumbled on them by surprise.

I haven't materialised out of nowhere.

It's been a long walk before reaching this point. If I had to have panicked that would have happened well beyond. And panic makes one move away from the threat and certainly not into it.

Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies me not taking the stairs on the left. Absolutely nothing.

Even if my route to "somewhere" makes me use this particular street (we see no reason for that) nothing justifies me not leaving it, hiding, waiting for the Smiths to pass, and then returning to it.

It's equally IMPOSSIBLE, to not have seen the stairs. There's a street lamp right next to it!!

I either have a dead body on my hands and don't want to make contact OR... I don't have a dead body in my hands and want to make contact.

The decision to continue without using escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz (Photo 9) was, as we saw, amazingly stupid.

The decision to continue without using escape route by unnamed street (Photo 11) was, as we saw, surrealisticaly stupid.

The decision not to use escape route by stairs is being impossibly stupid.

Even if it might seem suspicious to the Smiths to see me turn and go up the stairs (don't see any reason for them to think that) what can they tell the cops?

They can tell the cops that I am a man.

They can describe my clothes, in a very generic manner (not all are eagled-eye like Jane Tanner who can tell minute details at a similar distance).

Eventually they can say that I'm in my early late thirties or early forties.

Besides this, little else.

One thing is certain, they will be able to tell a lot more if I continue down the road.

And, I remind you, I am not at this point because I had to be.

I am at this point because I decided to be.

We know that stupidity is limitless but no one is this impossibly stupid.

Or at least this impossibly stupid and then end up being incredibly smart to have committed "the crime of the XXI Century" and have gotten away with it to this day.

By the way, this is the location where in the Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting its single crossing happens:

They had to make it happen before the stairs.

Photo 13
Photo 13 - 12 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, escape route by unnamed street and escape route by stairs and am 12 m (13 yds or 0.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1.

From here on I know I'm going to make contact with the Smiths.  

Multiple contacts with multiple witnesses. I have chosen for that to happen.

I had 4 opportunities to avoid contact. I used none.

5 opportunities if you count, as you should, the most obvious and logical one: turning back the moment I saw the Smiths down the road.

No panic accounts for this. I had the distance of a whole football pitch to avoid the contact.

Photo 14
Photo 14 - 3 metres

I’ve left behind escape route by the alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, escape route by unnamed street and escape route by stairs and am 3 m (3 yds or 0.1 tennis courts) from Smith 1.

The Smith Sighting is about to begin.

By the way, this is exactly the location where Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting ends:

According to the McCanns all happened between Photo 9 and here. We wonder why, after all information in images don't get lost in translations, do they?

Photo 15
Photo 15

I have now passed Smith 1 by 10 m (11 yds or 0.4 tennis courts), heading towards Smith 2 and Smith 3.

Photo 16
Photo 16

I have now passed Smith 1 by 18 m (20 yds or 0.8 tennis courts), am at Smith 2, heading towards Smith 3.

Here I do the most amazing thing for someone with a dead body avoiding contact: I stop!!

Sky News, April 07 2008:

Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

I stopped long enough and with near enough proximity to be asked by a total stranger if the dead body of the child I'm holding was asleep. Isn't that just absurdly surreal?


Photo 17
Photo 17

I have now passed Smith 1 by 26 m (28 yds or 1.1 tennis courts) and Smith 2 and am heading for Smith 3.

Google Maps street view doesn't go down Travessa das Escadinhas, so we have to stop our walk here.

Feeling tired? Please don't be.

It seems that I have given you a lot of detail but all given, with the exception of the Mockumentary pictures, is what we think went on the mind of the man seen in the Smith Sighting IF he was carrying the dead body of a child and DIDN'T want to be seen.

It would be unrealistic on our part to think the man thought about each detail with the precision we have presented.

But all of the details referred to would have been present in his mind.

As we said, this man has just committed a very serious crime and is supposedly trying to get away from it without being detected by committing another serious crime

All his senses are heightened. His space perception also. His mind working faster than full speed.

At each moment he's looking for escape routes in case he encounters someone unexpectedly. Obviously not only in Rua da Escola Primária but throughout the whole route to "wherever".

Before, during and after Rua da Escola Primária contact must be avoided at all costs.

All costs. All possibilities.

As you saw, this man walked into a very compromising situation for himself when he had all the time and opportunity(ies) to avoid it.

That can mean only one thing: he walked voluntarily to make contact with the Smiths.

But is it only his attitude coming towards the Smiths that tells us that this contact was absolutely intentional?

No. His actions while in contact are equally revealing of that intention.

One fact is that the Smith Sighting ended with the man going down the stairs, at Travessa das Escadinhas, towards Kelly's.

Taking into account that you are already on the left side of the street, which path would you choose, the blue or the red?

He chose the red. Why? Why zig-zag to go towards the stairs?  Wouldn't it be more natural and instinctive to "hide" the dead body by having it nearest to the wall as possible?

Why flaunt it?

Only one reason, he wants the Smiths to really grasp they have seen a man with a little blonde child in his arms

He crosses the road seeking proximity with Martin Smith and his wife. Note that Smith notices the man turns his head away from him. 

Why? To show he's holding a "sleeping" child but avoid revealing details about himself.

The two paths, blue and red, seen from different angles. Again, which would be the natural choice?

He chose red. Why?

Now imagine you are where the man on the picture above is. That's where Smith 2 contact happened.

You have already crossed with Smith's son and wife (Smith 2) and have stopped where Martin Smith is with his wife (Smith 2).

There's 2 options before you. You either go via red route and make the third contact with 3 teenagers or go via blue route where there's absolutely no one?

Like we showed you here, the man chose red. To make the third contact (Smith 3). Why?

The fact that the Smith Sighting was no accident and was intentional is not debatable. It's fact.

The only thing we hear contradicting this is those saying "It can't be so because he simply wouldn't risk being recognised after".

Let us just repeat what we said when proving a point about TS's first sighting of Pimpleman: "Try an experiment. Get an adult friend to look at a person you point to in the street. Make sure you have as much detail as you can yourself first. Give them some time to absorb detail, but don't tell them you are going to ask them to describe the person they are asked to look at. Then ask your friend to describe what s/he saw. I'd be surprised if they could remember half as much as TS."

The Smiths don't know they are going to be asked to recollect this incident, nor are even aware that it is an incident, so they're paying attention to the man as they should.

Martin Smith's son's attention is turned to his wife's welfare, Martin and his wife have their attention turned to their grandchildren and AS has her attention turned to the 2 other teenagers she's playing with.

They likely paid the man only a fleeting attention. They do grasp the big picture, a man with a blonde girl in his arms, but the details escape them.

This is confirmed by the fact that when the Smiths talk to the PJ none refer the possibility of the man being Gerry McCann

The McCanns' faces only became known in the evening of the 4th. If the Smiths had come forward during that day (the story was already in the news), they wouldn't be able to tell the McCanns apart from anyone else.

And their faces only became notoriously known in the subsequent days. Plenty of time for Smith to have come forward.

Note that when the Smiths speak to the PJ both Gerry and Kate are worldwide celebrities. The only face more known than theirs is Madeleine's. And none of them refer Gerry as the 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics.

The reference to Gerry only comes months later when he's seen coming down from the plane, holding his son.

If this hadn't jolted Martin Smith's memory the way it did to this day he would be the "perfect witness" as he would be both desired by the Black Hats as the mythical proof of abduction and by "White Hats" and White Hats alike as it would be the mythical proof of Maddie's body being disposed.

All the necessary ingredients for a never-ending discussion towards the blurry horizon of mythology.

It was that fascinating thing called subconscious that betrayed the whole subplot. That and Mr Smith's mouth. No one blames him for remembering but many do for having spoken.

And as we've seen the man was NOT very much worried about being recognised as he just walked literally right into the Smiths and even stopped so that he could be clearly seen.

Risking recognition does not deny that the Smith Sighting was intentional. It's no reason to outweigh all the surmounting evidence that it was.

It's a not debatable fact that it was.

Note that we haven't said, in this post, that it was Gerry or not, or if the child was dead or alive. All that is debatable. What isn't is that it was intentional.

I did portray a man carrying a dead body because it was the only scenario that the encounter could have been a surprise.  In case of the girl being alive, then there's no surprise whatsoever. It would be either someone trying to pass off the girl as Maddie, so wanting to make contact, or a PdL father simply walking home, so with no need to avoid it.

Besides saying that it was intentional, anything else said, by us or anyone else, about this incident is debatable.

Starting with as to the why it was intentional. That is debatable.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it. We say it was because it had the clear objective of having a 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics and with a blond girl in his arms seen there and there.

If it was Maddie related or not. That is debatable.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that the fact the girl was blonde, same age as Maddie and was in pyjamas and barefooted while the man carrying her had a coat on a chilly night makes it Maddie related.

If the girl was alive or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that by the vertical way she was carried and by the fact she was barefooted we think that the girl was alive and sedated.

To help prove our point:

(at Jill Havern and unterdenteppichgekehrt)

And in this post we have said that the intentionality of the sighting could only be because the man was not holding a dead body in his arms.

If the man's destination would have been the beach or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that it wasn't, as the access, via Rua Escola Primária and beach, to the sewer near the church, besides being an absurd route, is much too difficult for a foreigner to the town to know or to use (and certainly was one of the first places to have been searched) and to bury the body in the sand is simply ridiculous.

Out ot the 3 illogical but possible routes we know the man didn't use 2 (Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and Rua 25 de Abril). One cannot understand why he would use the third one, via Rua da Calheta, as it goes unnecessarily by Kelly's and Dolphins. 

If the man acted alone or had external help (a destination such as the church or an apartment), is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that to have external help of some sort with the exception of the one that mattered the most, a car to transport the body, doesn't make any sense.

To clarify our position we openly defend that the McCanns had external help that night but the distance to which Maddie's body was transported did not require a vehicle.

If the sighting took place at 22:00 or not, is open for debate.

We haven't given our opinion on this yet but will say that as there's proof that the Smiths were exiting Restaurant Dolphins at 21:27 (exiting doesn't mean out the door as the payment could have been made while sitting still at the table) and that they supposedly headed for Kelly's afterwards for a quick drink as Martin's son had to fly the next day, we think it the incident happened between 21:45/21:50 - 22:00/22:15.

If the man was Gerry or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that it was him as he's the only T9 male with no particular outstanding characteristics.

We would like, at this point, to point out to all those gleefully saying that "2-Face" is Gerry to please be aware of the implications of saying that.

If we were you, we would dampen our enthusiasm for the sake of coherence

There's currently a debate about 2 OC employees not being sure whether Gerry was at Tapas at 22:00, the possible timing of the Smith Sighting.

This was said publicly by Mr. Amaral on CMTV

As we said, we will not comment on anything Mr Amaral has said lately, in exact the same way we kept silent about Tony Bennett's trial until the final decision.

But what all those people defending that "2-Face" is Gerry have to check is if their "storyline" allows for a prolonged absence on the part of Mr McCann from the Tapas dinner.

If any OC employee noticed it.

We will remind you that it was quite an activity filled dinner.

Do take into account that this prolonged absence has to allow him leave the table, go to apartment 5A, pick up the body, walk out via back door (why not use the front door?), be interrupted by Jez Wilkins, engage in small talk, wait for Jez to disappear out of sight, walk up Rua Dr. Franscisco Gentil Martins, turn left on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, head towards the Smith Sighting, be seen, then from there head to "wherever", dispose or hide the body (if hidden remember to include time needed to ensure it was adequately accomodated and left) and then go back to Tapas.

We haven't included the expected change of clothes to avoid being seen wearing the same while carrying the corpse and when the GNR arrived. If he changed clothes, as he should, that would mean extra minutes at the beginning and make obligatory the return to the apartment before returning to Tapas at the end.

It does explain the mystery of the disappearance of the beige trousers on the McCann bed.

So to say that it was Gerry that Mr Smith saw, one has first to look attentively as to what the OC employees have said they saw that night.

And, if by chance, one is to discover that between what they have said and what is required for Gerry McCann to be at Rua da Escola Primária, one will have to say they're lying.

And if one discovers that ONE OC employee has lied, then one must question why. And if ONE has lied, how many others have too and why?

Where does one then draw the "honesty" line?

We, as you know, think that almost all, if not all OC staff who were in contact with the swinger group were quickly ordered to sing according to the same hymn music sheet that protected these guests and their "activity" above all else.

That's where we draw our "honesty" line and we like to be coherent.

Lastly, if the sighting really happened or not, is open for debate.

The fact that the Smith Sighting was intentional renders this particular debate irrelevant.

What?!? Say you...

Yes, that's right. All that matters is that it was concocted.

If you happen to believe, like we do, that the Smith Sighting happened as genuinely described by the Smiths, then the whole event was concocted up in apartment 5A by whoever and played out by a man, who we think is Gerry McCann.

This makes the Smiths unintentional and genuine witnesses.

There are some who defend that Mr Smith has come up with this convenient story to protect Robert Murat.  That he took too long to come forward (oddly, it's many of the same people who find it perfectly natural and acceptable for Mrs Fenn to have come forward only in late August).

We believe in the Smiths because their diverse statements are logical and coherent between themselves as they appear not to suffer from "Now-I-See-Now-You-Don't" Syndrome.

The syndrome that afflicted TS's mother, stopping her from seeing what her daughter saw although walking by her side, and Derek Flack's partner who, likewise, is unable to see what he can although like him almost bumping into Pimpleman.

But a debate is a debate and one must accept that there are those that believe the Smiths made it all up.

Then it simply means that the whole episode was concocted up by Mr Smith or by someone else for him.

This makes the Smiths Black Hats.

In both hypotheses, the episode is concocted.

In both hypotheses, it has the exact same objective: to have a 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics and with a blond girl in his arms be seen in Rua da Escola Primária around 22:00 on the night of May 3 2007.

As both have the same objective it's irrelevant whether it happened (Smith WH) or if it didn't happen (Smith BH).

What is relevant is that, whether real or fiction, it was intentional and that is a not debatable fact.

You can read our opinions about this particular episode in our Smith Sighting posts list on the blog's front page:


  1. The produced of CW, Joe Mather, said in October that a number of callers had given the same name for the man in the Smith sighting, yet nothing about this in the CW update.
    Tractorman has been reburied, as Redwood avoided Kirsty Young's question about him. A number of calls said to be from Praia da Luz, in spite of CW refusing screening rights to Portuguese TV channels. Yet where did the Smith sighting occur? Certainly not in Germany, so why did Redwood appear on a German TV show with its own reconstruction?

    Crimewatch, you need to recover your hard won reputation as public information programme, once highly regarded by people like me. Did you take The Times revelations into account? The e-fits hidden, under legal threat, for 5 years?


    Andy Redwood: I have been in Faro this week working with police colleagues, and I know the appeal generated a large number of calls to the Portuguese police also.

    But: British police launched their own investigation into Madeleine's disappearance earlier this year, called Operation Grange, and recently made renewed appeals for information on television in the UK, Holland and Germany.

    What appeal if CW wasn't aired in Portugal? People called PJ from UK, Holland or Germany?

  3. Redwood, SY e Crimewatch, encontram-se numa encruzilhada. Qualquer que seja o caminho, não é o que desejam e planearam.
    É impossivel vedar os olhos de um publico informado e atento. A Europa dos anos 30-40 que permitiu o nascimento de doutrinas baseadas no carisma e convicção de " homens só", morreu e deu lugar aos anónimos que pensam, criticam, questionam e não " engolem" as jogadas planeadas por alguns.
    Portanto só há duas decisões plausiveis para sair da encruzilhada - revelar a verdade e lavar a cara ou continuar na mentira e afundar-se com ela, sabendo que um dia a verdade sera revelada.

  4. Take a blonde child through the streets and ensure you aim for a group of people so they can see you......

    Whilst the other child is being removed......from the scene....

    I never could understand the Smith sighting. Why if you had an abducted child would you head straight for a group of people....I oftened wondered if it was just someone taking a child home, OR someone wanting to be seen...

    at a time there was no chance it could be you, what a great alibi.....

    1. But why would Gerry McCann, of all people, the father of the "abducted" child, take the risk of being seen by other people, walking the streets with a blonde child in his arms? When he knew there would be a high risk of being recognized later, because of all the media exposure he would be subjected to in the next days? The media exposure they planned to create and did create?! They might have created the "night stroller carrying blonde child" act as a way to have (hopefully) witnesses coming forward saying they had seen a man carrying a child which matched Madeleine's description on the night of the 3rd May, but why Gerry himself? It would be a high stake...but maybe Gerry's arrogance spoke louder, who knows, doing it himself maybe gave him some sort of weird pleasure...

    2. Anonymous 3 Dec 2013 15:53:00

      Gerry was the only person who could do it; the most average of the T9 men. Russell too tall and blonde hair, Payne, bald and wearing glasses, Matt, grey hair and the one prone to hysterics.

      And who else could or would they ask to do this, at such a time of panic?

      At this stage, they are trying to keep it to as few people as possible. So the choice was very limited. An abductor sighting was vital to support what was a statistically and physically improbable story.It was a case of literally keeping his head down.

      Add the arrogance of Gerry in thinking he could pull it off and you have the answer.

    3. Ok, so if it was McCann wanting to be seen, why on earth would he completely ignore the sighting, even going against the advice of his own private dicks? To this day the McCs are reticent about this 'sighting'. Surely they'd have been shouting from the rooftops?

    4. Anonymous 3 Dec 2013 20:53:00,

      Because up to the moment Martin Smith fingered Gerry in September 2007, he was a very convenient witness for the McCanns.

      So much so that Gerry singled out Irish and Dutch tourists in an appeal in his blog to come forward in June 2007. So he was interested that the Smith Sighting be given the notoriety the Black Hats desired. Shouting from the rooftops as you say.

      And things were working in their favour. The Smiths had already spoken with the PJ and had NOT minimally identified Gerry as the man they saw.

      After September 2007, things changed 180º. Smith became an inconvenient witness. The man with no particular characteristics became 80% Gerry.

      Only from then on have they "completely ignored" the sighting, even, as you say, when apparently M3 produced the 2-Face e-fit which McCanns kept hidden all this time.

      By the way, the McCanns haven't ignored this sighting. Kate has ranked it rather high in her book. And was also highlighted in the Mockumentary. Read our Public Misleading of Public post.

    5. Só o Gerry podia fazer o papel de raptor com uma falsa vitima. Encostado entre a espada e a parede, não teve escolha. Nenhum dos outros arriscava fazer este papel por uma criança que não era a sua e por um problema que não os envolvia diretamente. Eles não são diferentes da maioria das pessoas.
      Imaginem quantos de nós, publico em geral, já presenciamos acidentes rodoviários sem quaisquer vitimas ou estragos de maior e recusamos ser testemunhas? Uma grande maioria. Perante um efeito desconhecido, todos jogamos pelo seguro e não arriscamos, a não ser que não tenhamos escolha e Gerry não teve escolha. Ou montavam a história do rapto e falsificavam algum alibi ou assumiam a verdade e enfrentavam as consquências. Consequências, provavelmente muito devastadoras para a reputação do resort e de alguns dos seus clientes. Acredito que por tras de toda esta história, haja um mundo obscuro de chantagens. Provavelmente, a única coisa de que os Mccann podem realmente queixar-se de terem sido vitimas- vitimas da chantagem dos que com eles partilhavam ou partilharam os serviços do resort.

    6. Anonymous 3 Dec 2013 20:53:00

      About the McCanns being reticent about the Smith sighting allwow me to quote Kate from her book "Madeleine":

      "In addition to the man and child seen by Jane Tanner at about 9.15pm on the evening Madeleine was taken, and the similar sighting forty-five minutes later by the family from Ireland, there were six reports from four independent witnesses of a ‘suspicious’ male noticed around the Ocean Club. He was described either as watching our apartment or generally acting oddly, or both. Details of all eight sightings are given at the end of this book (corresponding artists’ sketches can be found in the illustrations).

      The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. TO ME THE SIMILARITIES SEEM FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ANY DISCREPANCY IN TIMING."

      So it seems that Kate, just like us, thinks that both what Tanner and the Smiths saw are related with each other.

    7. The above is followed by:

      "Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’

      Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically?

      There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might well have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly."

    8. Well, as per the words of Kate Mccann, the men was seen by the Smiths 45 minutes later. Did that lady think on what she wrote on her book? Which abductor walks around with the victim for 45 minutes? Specially if we add the comments on TV, from various experts who know the place, that takes 15 minutes walking from the resort to the beach?
      Kate have not done her homework properly, before delivering more confusion on her book. Or did she implies that the abductor enter a house in the middle of the way and later come out to another destination? Which house, was she thinking? Murat?

    9. Anonymous 4 Dec 2013 19:31:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      The logic behind Kate's words is simple: by having Jane see Gerry speaking to Jez and then see Bundleman together with Bundleman being Smithman, means logically that Gerry cannot be either.

      That is the line of thought in 2011. The post deals with waht they were thinking on the night of May 3 2007.

    10. Thank you Textusa for your Reply.
      I understand that, if happen on her statements soon after being confronted with the Smiths sighting. But, she brought back the issue, years later on her book. Why, she did not choose to ignore that, like what she have done with some other stuff?
      The fact she brought the Smiths sight to her book and wrote that extraordinary sentence, means the sight could not be ignored on their perspective and is too hot that force her to write what she wrote about the timming. She had to find a connection or an excuse for what the Smiths saw, specially becsuse her book came after the Smiths had recognised her husband as the man carrying the blond girl, when they landed in Uk in September. She knows, that this is a fact that they cannot overpass, then lets found a way to fit it on their fantastic story.
      But then, she needs to face the consequences of her words, if the reconstruction done by the police did not gave an alibi to Gerry and Jane, because in fact on a so narrow street, was impossible for Jane to pass there without see Jeremy and Gerry and was impossible for an abductor to pass there and be seen by Jane Tanner and not by the two man. She lies or all 3 lie. Kate, by puting that on her book, is assuming what she says. If is a lie, she incriminates herself. No surprise, they are so silent now, so cautious.
      They have talked too much on the pass, on their desperation to pass their own
      version of the events, based on their narcissist behavior of being unquestionnable. Now, their words will hunt them, mainly because there is no much money left to pay expensive lawyers and PJ seems to be the Master, who conducts the orchestra now.
      Thank you for your investigative blog.

    11. Thankyou Text for the reply and those potentially incriminating (surely) extracts. Little wonder the pair of schemers have looked sick since CW. SY not playing to the script - dismissing Tanner's sighting, just as the PJ had done before them. I would imagine Kate and her 'advisors' are going through the book line by line in order to anticipate future accusations based on glaring discrepancies. An impossible task,methinks. The deeper they dig, eh?

  5. Of course, the person carrying the child would have had to RETURN with the child, all in good time, so as not to away for too long. One wonders what route he may have taken, or if another route, did anyone else see him? Or perhaps he had an accomplice who took over at some rendezvous. If the blonde child was dead/or drugged in his arms, then the scenario would change, I would imagine? But perhaps npt... either way mission accomplished. He was seen carrying a child in his arms to set up the alibi of abduction.

  6. Previous post: sorry if I got carried away and went over old ground. Just got carried away.:)

  7. One more Christmas approaching without the child returning home. Nor by the hands of M3, 6 years ago, nor by the hands of Redwood or SY now. Which present are they going to buy to her? Did her parents come up, once again, with their usual ridiculous statement about their particular feelings at that time and what Santa brought to Maddie?
    What a silence in Rothley, when they should be screaming. Screaming to SY, for results. After 2 years of a huge badget and a top team to review. After international TV appeals, after e-fits and reopening the investigation, WHERE ARE YOUR RESULTS, SY? and why are you not SHOUTING AND CLAMING RESUTLS, MCCANN'S?
    You are both a shame to all parents of really missing/ abducted children. You know, Madeleine will never be able to come home again, for Christmas.
    Everything was a charade, exactelly like the Smiths sighting. Who carried that girl, that night, will be walking around PDL and delaying the alarm until he crosses with a witness and gets an alibi. He was lucky, because he find the Smiths few minutes after starting his journey. If not, he will be a Zombie carrying the girl around trough the night and the alarm will be raised at early morning.

  8. That piece says it all about a fake abduction followed by a fake review:

    "Kirsty Young: Well, following our reconstruction, we had an unprecedented response with the highest number of calls ever to our studio. The next day, the Met police detectives leading the case travelled to the Netherlands, to appeal on the Dutch version of Crimewatch, before moving on to Germany, where they were joined by Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry, to appeal on the German equivalent of our show. Our cameras were there and we spoke to them about how they felt it was all going." available at Mccannfiles

    ..."we had an unprecedented response with the highest number of calls ever to our studio. The next day, the Met police detectives leading the case travelled to the Netherlands, to appeal on the Dutch version..."

    What? Was not the police suposed to check the calls on the next day? Instead, they travelled to Holland and German for new appeals? What were they looking for? For an abductor to be located with the help of the public or for more public to feed the confusion?

    1. Exactly - your last paragraph says it all.

      But there is no abductor and they know that it is a farce. So the only thing it can be is to cause confusion. But I think it's also about waiting for us, UK, to say enough is enough.


    O artigo que os Mccann deviam ler. Cães não mentem nem são cumplices em esquemas.
    Os da GNR, também estiveram lá e não encontraram rastos de Maddie a ser levada por um raptor, em pijama, do apartamento para fora. Portanto, saiu de outra maneira e depois foi feita uma limpeza ao espaço, para camuflar vestigios, ou será que o material que deram aos cães para cheirar e localizar Maddie, nem tinha vestigios dela?

  10. Two good reads in McCann Files:

    Latest news/opinion

    When Drama Turns to Farce, 04 December 2013

    When Drama Turns to Farce The Blacksmith Bureau
    Posted by John Blacksmith
    Wednesday, 4 December 2013 at 15:51


    The 'Get Out' Clause, 04 December 2013

    The 'Get Out' Clause
    By Dr Martin Roberts


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.