God give me strength.

give me strengthTalk about 50 reasons, 30 reasons or 10 reasons.  Is it something in the water that makes these people have to venture down the path of finding reason upon reason why the McCanns are complicit in their daughter’s disappearance?  Can’t these people accept that they may have got things totally wrong?

Now we have the 12 Reasons why the Smith sighting is so important to the case…  Really give me a break.


Reason 1 – No innocent person ever came forward

Well as this person could be the abductor there is no way he was innocent and no way would he have come forward. What do you expect him to do, phone Police and say, “It was me not Gerry.”

Reason 2 – The child was carried without a blanket on a cold night

The abductor took the child, he was not concerned about the weather conditions, he wanted to get out of that apartment as quick as he could, and would definitely not hang around collecting and thinking about how cold it was. Kids do get cold, but it is not the death of them, once they have warmed up they are fighting fit and a lot of them don’t even feel the cold and as he was carrying the child close to his body his body warmth would have helped keep the child warm.

When Jane Tanner speaks about the child’s feet being bare and no blanket, she is speaking with hindsight.  What she is saying is, “I should have known something was wrong there and then because there was no blanket around the child and it was chilly.”

Reason 3 – All descriptions match carrier and child with Gerry and Madeleine

Wrong – Martin Smith states in his original statement dated 26.5.07:

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist.

Aoife Smith states in her statement dated 26.5.07 the child looked like Madeleine no mention of Gerry:

She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain. 

Peter Smith in his statement of the 26.5.07 states:

The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian, around 175 to 180 cm tall. About 35 years, or older. He was somewhat tanned as a result of sun exposure. Average build, in good shape. Short hair, brown in colour. He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad. 

and he thinks the child being carried was Madeleine

Having already seen various photographs of MADELEINE and televised images, states that the child that was carried by the individual may have been her. He cannot state this as fact but is convinced that it could have been MADELEINE, an opinion shared by his family. 

All descriptions state the child could have been Madeleine and Gerry is only brought into the frame after 9th September when Martin Smith makes another statement saying :

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.

Originally he said

— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph. 

However, the timing of the witnesses of seeing this person remains the same throughout their statements and that time being approximately 10pm on the night of the 3rd May 2007.

The PJ Final Report states:

Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.

Reason 4 – Time of the sighting is the exact same time as the alarm given by Kate in their timeline compiled later

Correct.  Kate went to check and returned to the Tapas Bar in a state of panic announcing Madeleine had gone.  Tapas members, staff and guests confirm this and it is confirmed that that is the correct time the alarm was raised. Kate’s timeline is not fabricated as it can be verified by various people.

Reason 5 – The sighting was never mentioned although it would have been evidence of abduction

Kate and Gerry McCann were under Judicial secrecy, they were not allowed to speak about the case.  If anyone should have made appeals about this known sighting it should have been the PJ in their investigation and they should have appealed to people to see if others saw this man.

Reason 6 – No mention in the press although Jane Tanner would have been more credible

A cover fax from Detective Branch Drogheda County Lough states the following:

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

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. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor’s fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

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.

Reason 7 – Private investigators secretly visited the Smiths

Brian Kennedy contacted him asking if he could do a photo-fit.  Once the McCann’s became aware of this sighting it is plausible that those helping would want to get a photo-fit of the person who could have taken Madeleine and the Smiths were witnesses to a person who could have been the culprit.

Reason 8 – After 2 years they mention the sighting in their docu but change all the key points

Please could you elaborate on this as I can’t recall them changing much.  The only thing that I can remember is the position where Gerry stood talking to Jez Wilkins being different to where Jane Tanner thought he stood.  But the position of where they stood is irrespective as all evidence points to this conversation between Gerry and Jez taking place.

Reason 9 – Goncalo Amaral was convinced the sighting was of utter importance.

Surely Goncalo Amaral or his officers would made it a priority to see if there were any CCTV in the area.  By the time they got around to asking about the CCTV it had already been wiped.  This is the fault of the PJ and the investigation not the McCanns.

Reason 10 – Goncalo Amaral was withdrawn when the Smiths were about to come to Portugal again.

False – Goncalo Amaral admits in his book he was removed from the Investigation because of an incident that happened on the phone with a journalist.  He lost his temper and immediately realised he could have caused a diplomatic incident as he was criticising the British Police.  His book states the following:

On Monday August 1st(*), I go back to work at DIC in Portimão, where two pieces of news are waiting for me: officials at Buckingham Palace have received an email informing them that a little girl – Madeleine – has disappeared from a hotel complex situated….in Lisbon! The second was brought to us by an English tourist – Kate – on holiday in Praia da Luz: she allegedly saw a stranger hanging about near the Baptista supermarket in the vicinity of the Ocean Club.

This is where we’re at: reduced to receiving that type of tip-off and chasing a phantom, that of the imaginary abductor. This Monday gets off to a bad start, with its load of irritation and preoccupations.


In the evening, while driving, I receive an unidentified phone call, the last straw…A journalist asks me if I want to comment on the subject of the email. Whether due to the difficult day, the raging storm or the fact of driving through rain…I lose my cool. I reply, irritably, without thinking, that the message is of no interest and that it would be better for the English police to occupy themselves with the Portuguese investigation. Even as I am hanging up, I realise that I have not only made a blunder, but I have been unfair towards the majority of the British police who have helped us throughout these difficult months. I drive on, certain that I have triggered a diplomatic incident with predictable consequences: as soon as these simple words are made public, I risk not being able to continue to direct the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation.

Please note (*) Should read 1st October and not August, have checked in PT book and it does state 1st October.

Reason 11 – One witness described a pair of Gerry’s trousers down to the buttons.

Please read this post, these trousers are quite common and if Gerry was carrying a deceased child, then surely these trousers would have had the death scent on them.  And surely the Police would have took note of what they were wearing especially at photo shoots and would have asked where Gerry’s trousers were.

Reason 12 – Mr Smith was 60-80% sure it was Gerry he saw

I think this point has been covered above.  At first he could not even identify the person, yet by September he is 60 -80% sure.  I have seen Gerry carry the twins on various video clips the same way as he carried Sean down those steps of the plane.  Why didn’t one of those clips jog Mr Smith’s memory?

%d bloggers like this: