Lying in the Sun

Smith Sighting

Smith Sighting


An Irish family saw a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine vanished.


The man carrying the child was described by Martin Smith as being not unlike Gerry McCann.  He is almost sure it was McCann.  The child a blonde haired child of around same age as Madeleine!


Smith is not basing his opinion that it was Gerry McCann on facial features specifically, but height, build, hair colour, and the manner in which he carried the little girl who appeared to the Smith family to be either in a deep sleep or unconscious as her arms hung at her sides, and were not wrapped around the man’s neck. Her eyes closed. 


It was when Smith saw a news report showing McCann carry one of his other children that he suddenly realised it could have been McCann he had seen carrying the little girl on the night Madeleine vanished.


McCann carried his little son down the steps of the plane in the same way as the man the Smith family had seen on the night Madeleine was reported as missing.  The child his son, whom he carried down the steps was sleeping his little arms hung at his sides the same position as the little girl’s had when seen by Smith family.


Whether this man was McCann or someone who looked like him is for the police to discover.


What we do know of this sighting is that the McCanns/their private detectives/Clarence Mitchell made little of this sighting.  Dismissing it almost in preference to the supposed sighting by their holiday companion, whose ‘sighting’ was deemed, not credible by Portuguese Police!

One has to ask, more so now than ever why they would do this, when we now know also that the two pictures released by the Metropolitan Police were it seems based on the Smith family descriptions of the man they had seen, and which were given to the McCanns!


Why were these e.fits buried in the files belonging to the McCanns their private detectives, left to gather dust for almost 6 years?


What we also know is that Martin Smith said the man he saw carrying the child on the night Madeleine vanished was not Robert Murat!


Robert Murat is the person who like Kate and Gerry McCann was made an arguido (person of interest/suspect) by the Portuguese Police.


Early in the investigation Gerry McCann was asked if he knew Murat.  McCann gave neither a positive or negative response.


Taking questions from the press, Gerry McCann is asked:


 "Did you know Robert Murat?"


McCann replies:


 "I'm not going to comment on that".


Why not a simple yes or no response?  He either knew Murat or he did not!


Murat is the man who Kate McCann accused of abducting Madeleine.


Kate McCann on Murat, her notes:

18th July 2007


 "I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat's situation. I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't".


 "I'm certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream", she writes on the 27th of July.”


(This is the same woman who has also stated she can forgive the perpetrator of crimes against Madeleine, yet she wants/wanted to kill Murat, just as she wished harm, pain and suffering on Dr Goncalo Amaral.  She wanted for Dr Amaral to disappear!)


Three of the McCann holiday companions claimed to have seen Murat on the night the child vanished.  Murat denies he was in the area that night.


Martin Smith said the man he saw absolutely was not Murat as he knows Murat by sight.

Martin Smith said the man he saw he is almost sure was Gerry McCann.


Who knows it may have been it may not have been.  It may have been someone else in the McCann party, it is as possible that this is the case, than not, but who knows.


Some are suggesting that the Smith sighting never happened at all.


I would have to disagree.


I cannot see that an entire family (as far as we know, who are not connected in any way to the McCanns or to Murat, other than Murat is known to them by sight, as he is a prominent figure in Praia da Luz known by many and where the Smith family own a property) would invent such a tale.


Martin Smith’s young daughter, who was around 11/12 years of age at the time of the sighting, gave a witness statement to police also.


If for no other reason, this would make me inclined to believe the family did in fact see a man carrying a child.  I cannot imagine that a girl so young would be able to carry off when interviewed by police a scam such as pretending she saw something she did not.   I would imagine for anyone giving a police witness statement it would be somewhat distressing especially in the case of a missing child.  For a girl so young to have had to do so, I just cannot believe that she would have been able to lie, and why would she?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Smith family saw what they said they did.  There is not a reason in the world that I know of for them to have lied.
And not a reason in the world for loving caring parents to put their daughter through the ordeal of giving a police witness statement unless the child had something important to tell regarding what she witnessed on the night Madeleine vanished.  Something which may have helped recover the missing child.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Smith's are anything other than what they appear to be - a decent caring and honest family.


Who is the man and child they saw – that is yet to be discovered.


What is interesting is that the McCanns did not pursue this sighting in any robust way. 


It is said one of the wealthy backers of the McCanns paid the Smith family a visit at their home in Ireland. 




To obtain a description of the man they saw?


If so, after getting this (if these e.fits are based on Smith family’s description) why did they not use them to help discover who this man was?


Why did they not pursue it with the same gusto they did the supposed sighting by their holiday companion Jane Tanner?


Why did the McCanns not publish the e.fits on their website?


This surely was a stone unturned?


The case of missing Madeleine was shelved by the Portuguese authorities.   At that time the McCanns could have exercised their right to have the case remain open.  As could Robert Murat!


None of the three arguidos Kate McCann, Gerry McCann or Robert Murat did so?


Quite astonishing, that the McCanns in particular, did not wish to have the case remain open, the search for their missing daughter to continue.


The shelving of the case resulted in their arguido status naturally then being dropped.   This it would appear was of greater concern to them than having the case remain open.





JS Judite de Sousa (JS) interviews Goncalo Amaral (GA)

(See Lost Opportunities Blog for full interview)


Gonçalo Amaral, so you defend that the process should be re-opened?


Yes I do.

I have always defended the re-opening 6, actually it's something the McCann couple NEVER defended, only recently, after two or three years, they've started to defend a review of the sightings – and that is what is being done. 

The re-opening of the process in Portugal, with all the indicia that are contained in the process, it was NEVER defended by them.

Note that when the process was archived in 2008, there were three suspects:   Robert Murat and the McCann couple.

Any of the three could have opposed to the process archival, some received 500.000 pounds of compensation from the British media whilst others kept quiet.


Because it WASN’T IN THEIR INTEREST FOR THE INVESTIGATION TO CARRY ON - but the investigation needs to go on.



Are you talking about the child’s parents?



I am talking about all of them, of all those that were considered suspects.



**Recently the press reported that Robert Murat has stated that the case should be re-opened.   Whether he has or can take formal action in this respect?

As for Gerry and Kate McCann, I have yet to come across any statement where they have acknowledged their wish for the case to be re-opened by the Portuguese authorities, and where they and their companions would be prepared to do what is right and proper and participate in a reconstruction of the night Madeleine was reported as missing, or where they have made any formal application to the Portuguese authorities in this regard.


It must be noted that the Metropolitan Police have not carried out a reconstruction of the events of the night Madeleine vanished.

What we saw on Crimewatch and the other versions shown in Germany,Netherlands etc were not reconstructions of the events of that night.

So very much of the important detail was omitted?

Until a proper reconstruction is performed based on what the McCanns and their companions have stated in their police witness statements given to the Portuguese Police and to the Leicestershire Police in the UK the truth cannot be established.

A re-opening of the case in Portugal would involve such reconstruction.

Something we know by the groups refusals to co-operate they are loathe to take part in. 


I don’t see any reason to disbelieve the Smith family.  Whether it will be discovered who it was they saw on that night is another matter.  Whether the man they saw was indeed Gerry McCann, one of his companions, carrying Madeleine… or a stranger to the group remains to be seen.


Whether Gerry McCann did know Murat at that time on any level also remains to be discovered.


If the McCanns are involved in concealing what became of their daughter the assistance of someone who knew the area one might consider as being “useful.”


Murat does seem to have been ruled out by Smith, and depending on the timing of the sighting, McCann would seem to have been ruled out by his companions!

An abductor who planned to take a child (as Redwood has suggested happened - a planned abduction) would not walk that distance through the town carrying the child, the child not concealed in any way for all to see. That is just a nonsense.   A vehicle would have been used if there was no plan to cover the child in any way.

A loving father a holiday maker residing at the Ocean Club  taking his child home from the creche would not be that distance away from the McCann apartment either, as the Ocean Club apartments did not extend that distance.

Local people on a cold night early in May would not have been out wandering around with their children dressed only in pyjamas or very light clothing, bare feet.

So who would have been walking 'with purpose' carrying a child...heading in the direction of the clinic..?  The same direction which leads to the beach also?

Someone whose child, whose little girl had perhaps had an accident? Someone who was looking after the child when she had an accident?
Someone known to the child (if Madeleine)who shouldn't have been in the apartment when the child had an accident?
Someone who arranged with the parents to remove the child?

21st October 2013

Website Builder