Thursday, 25 November 2010

What the Smiths really saw...?

Don't you wish there were more details available about the Smith family sighting, it appears to be the most important sighting in the case.

I believe it to be absolutely more credible than the preferred McCann sighting - Tanner's swarthy man, because a whole family spotted a man hurriedly carrying, not what they believed to be a bundle, but a female child.  The family gave detailed descriptions of her hair, skin and clothing, therefore no way could his encumbrance be construed as a bundle.  They knew for sure this man was carrying a little girl. Mrs Smith was even close enough to ask if she was asleep.

This sighting was so important because it incorporated multiple, corroborating and independent witnesses, yet the McCanns failed to promote it until it was covered briefly in the Channel 4 documentary.  And it was covered incorrectly.  In the Channel 4 documentary, the sighting was filmed in the wrong location.  The sighting took place at the bottom of Rua da Escola, as seen below in Goncalo Amaral's documentary...

Yet, in the Channel 4 documentary, for some reason filming has taken place in a different location...

Strange that... and depicting an abductor carrying the child across the arms - the way Tanner 'would have' and not how Mr Smith described...

"Carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body"

How on earth could the McCanns, their Team and the Channel 4 crew get things so important, so wrong?  Right enough, nobody cared where the Wilkins/McCann conversation took place, so none of it really matters?

There are some intriguing pieces of  information resulting from this sighting.  Mr Smith's daughter in her description of the carrier viewed the most mundane thing and promptly forgot about it.  Something  I believe we all do regularly - things which only come back to us when specifically reminded, otherwise forgotten in the depths of the mind.  She spotted the button detail on the man's beige, cotton trousers.  Bit like these ones??

Mr Smith had already made a statement at Portimao police station in May 2007, but on seeing Mr McCann alight from his flight in the UK in September 2007 was shocked to see a similarity between him and the man he saw on the night.

"Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM news on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children."

Mr Smith went on to say that his wife agreed with his suspicions, and felt the same way about the similarity.  I believe this is something that cannot be taken lightly - it has been discussed between husband and wife and is a huge step to take in contacting the police again.  After all, a man's life is on the line.  According to the police, Mr Smith was worried and shaken and genuinely concerned by his realisation.  He went ahead and made another statement to include his thoughts and has since been persistently contacted by various sources including Brian Kennedy, supporter of the McCanns.

"He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person." 
Detective Branch, County Lough

Mrs Smith did not wish to make another statement.  Could we wonder whether these thoughts and suspicions were already included in her original statement?

Mrs Smith did get close enough to the man and child to establish that she was sleeping, she got close enough to make contact with the man, who averted his eyes and ignored her.

Did she also get close enough to see the birthmark on the child's lower left leg, where her little cropped pyjama bottoms were pushed up due to her being carried? The birthmark that only the police have made public, yet doesn't warrant one single mention from the McCanns?

Did Mrs Smith make a positive identification of the child on that night?

We'll have to wait for the answers to certain questions, because Mrs Smith's statement was never released in the public files.  The big question is 'why?' and could this be the missing piece?...

**With thanks to the fabulous McCannfiles for detailed information on the Smith sighting, please visit and read for yourself.


  1. No bin, no cannibalism, no horror to ban ! A pity that my begging to be deleted was ignored ! Just asking your source about Mary Smith's statement in front of the gardai is kept hidden.

  2. Read again Anne, or follow the link. Mrs Smith never made a statement in front of the Gardai - she didn't want to make another one.

  3. I've read the files many times, MMM, and I know there's no mention of a statement by Mary S. We know that her husband, advised on the phone by the PJ, went to the Gardai (before going back to PDL). He probably made a statement there, even very short, that was considered important, because the Gardai alerted the LC who alerted the PJ. But there's nothing about such a statement, if it existed, in the files. As you mentioned a hidden statement of Mary S. I thought she might have gone to the Gardai with her husband and made a statement there (as the Gardai say she didn't want, in September, make ANOTHER statement).
    I was just asking and I'm asking again : what is your source about a statement (where ? when ?) of Mary S. that would have been kept hidden ?

  4. You would need to ask the PJ, Anne, Mrs Smith didn't wish to make ANOTHER statement. Her original statement is not in the released files. I've no idea where it is... have you?

  5. MMM, I didn't interpret "another" as you did... I thought the Gardai meant "another" in relation to Martin S'statement!
    I understand very well that Mary S. wasn't very keen to make a statement about GMC. Backing her husband (good wife !) was a thing, making a statement another. One was enough, the rest was with the police. Personally I don't think that I would have had the courage, though I think Martin S. was right to do it. After all GMC has a rather common face, there must be hundreds of lookalikes.
    Now there's nothing in the files on Martin S' first phone call. We don't even know when it was. This is a bad point. GA learnt probably about this sighting only when the LC contacted the PJ. He thought the Smith family would identify RM if.
    As they didn't, they were not interesting any more. A pity !

  6. Mr Smith said in his statement. ''It was the way Mr. McCann turned his head down that was similar... It may have been the way he was carrying his child.

    ''I am basing this on his mannerism, in the way he carried the child off the plane.''

    Unfortunately for G McCann it wasn't his common face that alerted Mr Smith !

  7. MS isn't 100% sure
    Apart from his wife, the others don't identify GMC
    None of the members of this family said in May 2007 she/he would recognize the carrier

    A reconstitution of that crossing would have been useful. Though the Smith family goes to PDL on a regular basis, no reconstitution with GMC was suggested.

  8. The birthmark on Madeleine's lower leg is something that could easily have been observed,mothers notice things like that and it's enough of a distinguishing mark to be mentioned in her passport whereas the colomboma isn't !So yes MMM you could well be onto something .

    Amaral has said there is
    ''much more''information in the files than we have seen ,so maybe this is some of it !

  9. MMM, your addiction to banning amazes me. Though I wasn't this time speaking of bins nor cannibalism, an innocent "A pity !" was suppressed from my post all the same !
    A pity !

  10. @anonymous 07.41

    The birthmark and the lack of publicity is something that's always confused me. If Maddie was really abducted and being treated like a princess, surely in the summer months she'd be wearing shorts or a swimming costume? Something much more noticable from a distance than her coloboma? It should have been publicised by the parents as regularly as her eye, but it wasnt. In fact I think the only place I've seen evidence of it is on the PJ's missing persons page? Suppose a boring, brown blob isn't such a good marketing ploy in comparison.

  11. You would almost think they didnt want her found by not plugging the birthmark, and also releasing younger photos of her. Wonder just what is in those files that we dont know about. One things for sure it cant all be handed over to the McCanns. It would only be done if the case was CLOSED.

  12. MMM, don't you think it would be fair to say who spotted the button remark and found the pictures of GMC's pants ?

  13. Can anyone direct me to the PJ's missing persons page please? It's just so hard to believe that I have never heard about this birthmark on her leg before .
    Why on earth did her parents never emphasize this birthmark ,it was on her lower leg so could have been seen so easily?

    You'll see that the coloboma is mentioned, but not with this technical word.
    This birthmark isn't very visible. You can see it on the photo with the tennis balls.

  15. Thankyou for directing me but unfortunately the link is broken .I managed to find the tennis ball photo but can only see part of her lower left leg .Does it say in the link where about's it is on her lower left leg ,for example is it on the inside or outside of her leg?
    It's such a terrible thing that her parents didn't make sure the public were told about this birth mark and where exactly where on her left leg it is in the same way they made sure we knew about her coloboma ,she might have been found by now .

  16. "The birthmark isn't very visible. You can see it on the photo with the tennis balls." Somewhat contradictory? How can you see it on the tennis ball photo? Her right calf is facing the photographer, left calf is hidden??

  17. @anonymous 13.10

    Try this link which is in English -

  18. Ooups ! I thought I saw a spot on the right calf, and the mark is on the left ! Sorry !

  19. It's bigger than a spot and easily recognizable.

  20. After reading what Kate had to say in her book about the Irish sighting I thought I'd read more about it.Having done so it seems that Kate is deliberately lying in her book as it doesn't tally at all with the official line.So for the benefit of those who haven't read your blog MMM I'm sharing it again in the hope it will allow more people to read the truth because after reading parts of her book the truth appears to have eluded Kate big time.What a liar she is!


Please refrain from bad language, insults and biblical references.