Lying in the Sun



I see 'Smithman' is once again receiving much attention.

For all of the reasons I have given in a previous blog - 'Smith Sighting' -  I believe that this family did indeed see a man carrying a child.   One of the main reasons is that I cannot imagine any parent putting their young daughter who was around 11/12 years of age at the time, through the ordeal of having to give a police witness statement and asking the child to lie when speaking with police.

Children unlike adults, tend not to lie and especially not prone to lie in such unusual circumstances as having to speak with police officers.   A child, I believe would tell the truth.

Added to this, this child also described the man she saw as having worn she thinks, trousers with buttons down the side.

Gerry McCann we know owns such a pair.  In fact there is a picture of him 'doing the rounds' dressed in such a pair of trousers.

So indeed I believe this family did see someone carrying a child.

What I am not so sure of is, that it was necessarily Gerry McCann!   That does not exclude him from perhaps being involved. 

I believe Martin Smith may in fact know absolutely who it was he saw.  

I believe he saw either McCann, one of his holiday companions, or Robert Murat.

I believe for the McCanns to have concealed their daughter's body they would have required the assistance of a local person.

Martin Smith said he knew Murat from seeing him around locally in bars etc.

Did Martin Smith's wife know Murat?  Possibly!

Did she agree with Martin Smith her husband that it was not Murat but Gerry McCann they saw?

His wife did not want to give a further statement to police I believe at the time when her husband Martin told police that he now thought the man he had seen was Gerry McCann.

Did Martin Smith's married son and his wife who were in Praia da Luz for a holiday know Robert Murat?  Not very likely.

Did his young 11/12 year old daughter know Murat? Probably not! 

One would have to assume that if Martin Smith and his wife frequented bars restaurants on their visits to their home in Praia da Luz, and if this is where Martin Smith knew Murat from, that the probability that his wife knew Murat too was high, even if only by sight.  

One would have to assume that they both would have been able to identify him as the man they saw carrying the little girl.

Martin Smith said it was not Robert Murat.
What did his wife say?

Martin Smith's son and daughter I would discount as being persons able to identify Robert Murat.

I cannot see an entire family, including a young child such as Smith's young daughter all being prepared to lie to police - why would they?

I think the question is not did they see a man carrying a child - but rather - Who did they see?

Gerry McCann when asked by reporters if he knew Robert Murat, would not give a definite answer, neither a 'yes' or a 'no.'

A very simple and direct question, nothing difficult - Did he know Robert Murat - he refused to answer with a positive or a negative?

I am not sure if the question has been put to Robert Murat - Did he know Gerry McCann before Madeleine vanished?

I would not rule out any of the above mentioned persons as being the person the Smith family saw.

I see too that it is being said that perhaps Dr Amaral put too much emphasis on the Smith sighting, a sighting he wanted to explore more and would have done, had he not been removed from the case.

I don't think he did!

Dr Goncalo Amaral when speaking of those who could have prevented this case being shelved, stated that the 'three arguidos' a that time - that is Kate McCann, Gerry McCann and Robert Murat, all could have prevented the shelving, exercised their right to do so.

None of them cared to have the case remain open!

I believe one of the things we can be sure of in this case, is that Madeleine was not removed from the apartment 5A the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in Portugal by any petty thief, member of a paedophile gang, burglar, or any raggle taggle gypsy O !

The man Redwood introduced the Brit carrying home his daughter is too, a nonsense.   There is no such person, no such child registered at the creche for that night.  (See Blog 'Hope and Tanner Talk)

Did any of the creche staff give a statement saying that such a child was dropped off at the creche, dressed only in pyjamas and picked up again by the man described, and taken out into the cold night with nothing to cover the sleeping child?

What we do know is that the McCanns their holiday companions lied about an awful lot in this case.

People don't lie unless they have something to hide.

What they are hiding has to be discovered - why would the entire group lie?

Their story makes no sense, and in the words of a famous TV Judge - if it doesn't add up - it's a lie!

Note also - Kate McCann spoke of Tanner seeing a man carrying a child with bare arms.

Tanner didn't see the arms, legs, bare feet of any child - Tanner didn't see anyone!

So why did Kate McCann say Tanner saw a child with bare arms? (Oprah Interview I believe)

The Smiths, one of them describes the child they saw as having her arms covered.  So a long sleeved top, pyjama top or other.

What kind of jim jams did Madeleine have on that night - long or short sleeved?

But that's another 'pyjama story' which relates to another Kate McCann tale about a tea stain!

Oh and the Big Pyjama Story Redwood told us, presenting us with the Big Pyjamas, saved by the family for six years - they had long sleeves!    So even if Tanner saw someone, the bare armed child that Kate McCann suggested, then Tanner didn't see Redwood's guy!

The wicked webs that have been weaved in this case!

Keep it simple as Dr Amaral and the Portuguese Investigation have, the answers are there.

So where did that libel trial leave off?   Ah yes, with the McCann/Healy family telling all sorts of porkies, and the McCanns so desperate not to appear as they were busy making mischief elsewhere - they had 'Crimewatch ' on their minds - but then realised they had boobed - and hot footed it to Portugal to beg the Judge to allow them to speak....

Which Kate will we see? ...the drab Kate with her 'Court Clothes' and sad tired, makeup free face (just as long as she doesn't dust down one of those duffy coats) - or the happy happy Kate, who when selling lots of books or sitting on a breakfast time sofa - is all pink and giggly, face washed, scrubbed up with a dab of lipstick and some stuff painted on her eyelids?  

And what Gerry will we get, angry Gerry, arrogant Gerry, or will it be the happy Gerry who was laughing his head off days after Madeleine vanished?

One never knows perhaps Jolly Gerry and Caring Kate from Crime Watch will make an appearance?

Those two certainly were the perfect parents, and they didn't use swear words in front of the children...unlike the parents they were portraying...

But more important than Kate's duffy and purple eye makeup - have they done enough over the past weeks with silly stories in press to cast doubts on the libel trial...

I'd say they have tried their best...but I would imagine...that the bottom line remains the same...they may not be suspects at the moment in the case of their missing child but that is a situation which can change, their child her remains the whereabouts not yet discovered...

And as we know the Portuguese Police, their recent tasks are not in relation to their own re-opening of the case, they related to the rogatory letter sent by British authorities, requesting that the Portuguese Police look at 'this and that'...some of their 195 leads I take it...

The Portuguese Investigation has yet to get underway!

How will the McCanns play it, with truth or lies?

One thing for sure, Dr Goncalo Amaral, will bring only truth!
3rd November 2013
Website Builder