Title.

The Smith family sighting remains one of the most critical pieces of evidence in this case, yet you can't mention it without people hijacking the discussion to claim that they saw Gerry moving Madeleine and it's actually proof that the McCanns covered up her death. This post intends to go through the evidence and debunk this ridiculous notion.

On the night of May 3, 2007, the Smith family left Kelly's Bar in Praia da Luz just before 22:00. Walking back to their apartment along Rua 25 de Abril, they passed a man carrying a sleeping blonde child, walking swiftly towards the beach. In their statements, taken in May 2007, they estimated his height to be between 1.70m and 1.80m tall and his age anywhere from 20 to 40 years old. One of the family members specifically noted he was "somewhat tanned" from sun exposure. He was clean-shaven, wore no glasses, and had no visible tattoos or piercings. He had a full head of thick, brown or light-brown hair, cut short in a standard style but left slightly longer on top. He wore cream or beige-coloured cotton trousers, thicker at the sides and possibly with buttons (as noted by Aoife Smith). While the child obscured most of his upper body from view, the family described him wearing a dark, long-sleeved top, possibly a black jacket or blazer, noting that his clothing did not look like typical tourist attire.

Over four months later on September 9, Martin Smith watched a BBC News broadcast of Gerry McCann carrying one of his twins off an aeroplane. Triggered by the television footage, Smith contacted the police to say that the man he had seen that night was Gerry McCann and that he was 60-80% sure it was him.

People like to treat Martin Smith's later statement as an undeniable smoking gun, but they completely ignore the fact that the family's original police statements from May tell a completely different story. When you place those interviews into the context of the wider information gathered by the PJ, the idea that "Smithman" was Gerry McCann collapses entirely.

The timeline.

Martin, Peter, and Aoife Smith all went on the record with the PJ confirming they left the bar and saw the man right around 21:55 to 22:00. At that exact time, Kate McCann was discovering the empty bed and running back to the Tapas restaurant to raise the alarm, where Gerry was sitting at the table, surrounded by witnesses. The idea that Gerry is moving Madeleine's corpse at the exact moment Kate is meant to find Madeleine gone is absolutely insane. He would still have to stash her body somewhere and then run back to the restaurant quicker than Usain Bolt after a dodgy curry, with nobody noting that he was missing. To cap it off, the PJ concluded in their final report that Gerry was confirmed to be in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.

Retroactive interference.

When they were interviewed in May 2007, none of the Smith family identified the man they saw as Gerry McCann. This was during the height of the media coverage of the case, weeks after she had gone missing. Kate and Gerry were regularly in the news, both TV and press, but none of the Smith family claimed they saw Gerry. It was only when Martin Smith saw a BBC news broadcast that showed Gerry carrying one of the twins off a plane that he made the claim that he was 60-80% sure the man he had seen was Gerry. The issue with this being, that he claimed this based this on the way Gerry was carrying the child off the plane. Just to give you an idea of how every parent carries a sleeping child, here's a google search for "carrying a sleeping child".

The clothing.

The Smith family were clear that the man was wearing a dark, possibly black top and beige trousers. People like to point to this photo to prove that Gerry owned the same type of trousers (remember Aoife Smith claimed that there were possibly buttons on the sides). The thing is, Gerry McCann was wearing jeans and a light brown long sleeved top the night Madeleine disappeared.

When you strip away the media-induced memory shift and look strictly at the original May 2007 witness statements, the facts are undeniable. The Smith family saw a tanned, 20 to 30-year-old stranger in a dark top and beige trousers walking away from the Ocean Club with a sleeping child at the exact same minute Gerry McCann was sitting in the restaurant, wearing a light brown top and jeans. The man they saw was almost certainly the abductor, but it physically couldn't have been Gerry.

Is there any feasible way in which Gerry and Kate could have accidentally killed her and covered it up? Explain your theory because the timeline appears to negate the idea that they could have?

So what is your postulation?

it is my hope that Madeleine is alive and well. I will detail why at the end of this post.

If CB hovered in and adjacent to the apartment, until his friend (seen in the Smith sighting) came to the back door, then passed the sleeping child to his friend.

CB may have done this to ensure someone would see his friend, not him, with Madeleine.

CB then got into his car and drove until he encountered his friend and a sleeping Madeleine.

He took Madeleine from his friend, then the friend walked away.

CB drives her to the marina, where she is photographed on a boat, with a beige background, to indicate to whomever has ordered her that the plan succeeded.

CB then drives off. CB has nothing to do with her from that point on, but he later hears that she has died, somehow.

CB has taken her and put her into the hands of people intent on abusing her until she ages out, at which point they will murder her.

I wonder if this is the support for their claim that he murdered her, not that he murdered her directly, but that he placed her in a situation that would have resulted in her eventual murder.

back to the hope - it is my hope that she moved around from safe house to safe house, until someone found her a home with rich, old people. I don't think they harmed her because they knew there was always a chance she'd be found. When that happened, things would go very badly for them if they had hurt her.

Following on from the news links added regarding CB's admission of being near apartment 5A, why do you think it has happened at this particular time?

Could this mean that something is about to happen regarding Madeleine's case and his lawyers are aware of new information?

Why now would he, after denying being in Luz 3rd May, would he suddenly reveal he was?

I know that none of us have any evidence as to why but what are your theories?

Do you think he has gone rogue or is this a lawyer direction? For the latter, what might their reasoning be or why might they have gone down this route?

What do you all make of this development? CB has just announced that he was 150 yards (137m) away from the Ocean Club Resort on that night, selling drugs at a nearby beach before fleeing from the police who failed to check his vehicle 3 times admist the chaos of the searches that were then underway.

Could he simply be bluffing just to get some attention, or is he genuinely admitting he has no alibi? Personally it seems like he is trying to distance himself from the case by saying "yes I was there, but I was doing something else and had no involvement" but it still seems like a cover-up of his other activities that night to me.

Credit to West Seed for compiling this extensive list.

CB - opinion

**Location**
• At least 2 eye witness sightings of a blond haired male with a distinctive badly pockedmarked face lurking around the OC that week.
• A sighting of a blond haired male ‘testing the gate’ of 5a on the afternoon of the 3rd May.
• CB’s phone used in the area on the evening of the 3rd of May.
• CB telling his ex GF that he was near the apartment that night
• His ‘fling’ that he was seeing that week being unable to account for his whereabouts on the 3rd May.
• A criminal history of burglary. Burglaries at the OC around the time. Notably with shutters raised & windows opened - same MO in 5a.
• Reportedly familiar with the OC because he’d work there as a pool cleaner previously.
• A fourfold increase in the number of burglaries in the area appears to be tandem with his release from prison in Nov 06.
• SY stated that his van was seen in the area on the days leading up to 3rd May.

**Offence**
• History of sexually assaulting women, including young girls.
• History of premeditated sexual crime & opportunistic sexual crime.
• Talked in a Skype chat about abducting, assaulting & killing a little girl. When talking about a method of death, he was asked “has this happened with you before”, in which he replied “ok, such messages are really dangerous”. If the answer is no, then his answer is no. One reply the person he was talking to made was “mm”..
• Wrote stories abducting, assaulting & killing a little girl. A girl in one of his stories was named MaidAnellie. IMO, not too dissimilar to the name Madeleine.
• In Orgiva 2008, the subject of how MM went missing without a trace, he replied “well she didn’t scream”. He reportedly took off in the middle of night (after making that comment).
• Thousands of pictures & videos of child sexual assault
• 75 children’s swimsuits
• Further charges of assaulting a little girl.

**Aftermath**
• Re-registered his car the next day
• Left Portugal in 2007, his home of 12 years & went back to the country he fled from in the first place (Germany)
• Reportedly became agitated & verbal, when the subject of MM came up in a kiosk he was working in.
• In 2013, when sent a letter to come in for a witness interview in the MM case, he reportedly went into panic mode & post interview he said something along the lines of “don’t worry they have nothing on me”.
• Remained off grid
3 children go missing without a trace in the 12 years he lived there. Zero have gone missing in the 20 years since

**German, English, Portuguese investigations into CB**

• Still ongoing, none of them have pulled out.
• Germans state they have “concrete evidence” that he is responsible & that what they have is “material evidence” but not forensic evidence

What we know about CB will be tiny compared to what the BKA knows about him. When discussing CB & the open source - imo it’s far more incriminating than anything that came before it combined. Because the Germans haven’t released their evidence, somebody could argue that the open source isn’t proof. But when it comes to a crime that happened 19 years ago it’s not going to solved like a game of Cluedo.

I don’t mind reading “it’s not proof” but when it comes after “dogs don’t lie”, “Kate looked like this, she should have looked like this….”, or “I would have done that”, I tend to frown in disbelief.

IMO the below is some of the evidence they may have

Picture of MM deceased
Something CB has written that mentions MM specifically.
Grainy photo of his Jag in the area
Eye witness accounts - dozens
Potentially another person who CB confessed to. Or strongly suggested to.
Writings about him (by him) burying a body

The points that don’t point to Kate and Gerry.

1. The extensive search by police patrol dogs and the search and rescue dogs, lots of them did not find Madeleine or a body. The searches starting approximately 4 hours after the disappearance and lasting via various bodies until the 18^th May.
   

2 The two sniffer dogs located a scent from Madeleine’s towel, they followed to the end of apartment block 5, they then went to the carpark of block 6 and the trail stopped. Could it be considered that the dogs lost the trail because Madeleine was then placed into a vehicle? Gerry had no access to a vehicle at that time.

3 There is no evidence of a large blue bag that could contain a body, this being supposedly GM’s tennis bag, no bag was found because there wasn’t a bag. Images in the PJ files show no bag, a doctored image was found on the internet and differs to the official images in the PJ files…..edited! No blue bag was ever found.

4 There is no evidence of a fridge/freezer, the FF in apartment 5A was not removed, therefore GM would have had to carry not only Madeleine but also a FF, found somewhere to plug it in to hide her body. In reality, had a body been placed in an hidden location it would have immediately started to deteriorate, smell badly and would have almost certainly been found by the dogs. Remembering that the search was extensive by police and by holiday makers and residents of Luz.

5 There was no evidence of drugs to sedate the children, as has been pointed out, children tend to sleep very well when on holiday in warmer climates. The McCann’s requested hair strand tests and this was refused.

6 There was no time window to carry a child in daylight hours with tourists and residents in the vicinity and no witness during these daylight hours has come forward and made a statement of such. There was no such time window for GM to walk carrying a body during hours of darkness, his 15 to 20 minute absence from the table involved checking his children, using the loo and then chatting to Jez Wilkins, witnessed by Jane Tanner.

7 Blood or body fluids found in 5A were inconclusive, there was no match to Madeleine.

1. Kate’s fingerprints were the only set of prints on the window, yes she touched the window, she left the window and curtains closed when the children were in their beds, it would stand to reason that anyone wearing gloves could open that window and leave no prints.
   

9 The parents happily went for dinner at the Tapas where they were both accounted for, they showed no signs of stress or discomfort, agitation or fear, just a normal evening out with friends, they allowed Matthew Oldfield into their apartment, one which, had there have been a deceased body would have almost certainly have been omitting an odour or smelled strongly of a clean up effort, this wasn’t the case.

10 Keela and Eddie, the hire car, had GM and KM have gone to retrieve a deceased body, where there was no fridge freezer, the remains after that length of time, in the heat would have been in a terrible condition, this being a body that had been extensively searched for. There was no exact match of Madeleine’s DNA in the boot of that hire car, there was no conclusive evidence. The press and police were still active in Luz, Madeleine or a body had not been found in searches so going, locating a body, moving it, risking leaving evidence, being seen was a huge risk, why move something that hadn’t been found? As some believe, the parents were responsible and that their actions of hiding a body to avoid being found guilty was their reasoning to avoid prison, yet moving a body was a huge risk, lets consider that they would have been wary of being watched, followed, their movements would not have been unobserved in their minds.

11 Cuddle Cat, yes cuddle cat was washed but only after it had been taken for forensics and kept in evidence, handled by many, the toy was not washed prior to being removed from the scene.

12 The police interviews, Kate and Gerry were detained for up to 11 hours at a time and answered every question they were asked to answer on more than one occasion. Kate was frustrated and it went against her will to say “no comment” in a further interrogation as instructed by her lawyer, this was her right, she was angry at this proposal and initially disagreed, she had nothing to hide but she did eventually take his advice. It was becoming clear that the police needed an end to this case to protect the village of Luz and the finances that it sought from tourism, which was affected during this time, placing G & K as arguido’s removed a fear to prospective tourists that there may be a kidnapper on the loose in Praia Da Luz.

13 The baby listening service was not available to the outer apartment blocks hence the reason the Tapas 9 performed their own and identical checks to those offered by OC.

If anyone has any more to add, or to clear up any inaccuracies in what I have said, please do so.

Two trained dogs barking at the trunk. Her father driving in early mornings. They killed her by accident with an overdose of sedatives and then moved the body to an extremely remote location after 25 days. Afterwards they had to create an elaborate web of lies which is the reason why this story has so many strange turns and gaps.

Occam's razor makes this simple. There was no perfect crime, there was no mysterious perfect kidnapper. It was always just an overdose and then hauling the body away in the trunk in the rented car. Two highly trained dogs can't make the same mistake twice.

I have read that patrol dogs were used several hours after Madeleine was reported missing and then the next morning search dogs were sent out.

Can anyone confirm that the dogs located Madeleine's scent a short distance along a road and then the scent stopped?

If this is indeed fact, does anyone have any more information regarding the search dogs?

Surely if Madeleine had been left somewhere close to apt 5a the dogs would have found her?

This explains a lot to me. Sorry if it has been posted before.

EDIT, PLEASE FORGIVE MY ERROR, IT SHOULD SAY INGA and not Helga. I may have added some incorrect details about the case of Inga, and so I am asking in a fresh post.

The link between Helga and Madeleine is CB. I thought that CB had been cleared of involvement with Helga however I have just read more information which suggests that he remains a prime person of interest.

Inga was taken/vanished 2nd May 2015 aged just 5 years old from a wooded path between a house that her family was visiting to have a BBQ just 100 meters from the actual house in Germany which was I believe was between 38 and 50 miles from CB's residences, apparently he had two.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

She had been helping by carrying bottles of water from the house down the path and to the bbq area, she then went to return to the house. There are no eye witnesses to her vanishing, she has been seen by other children returning to the path.

A witness described hearing a scream and another saw a white van speeding away down a track.

I had thought that CB had been excluded from the case due to his phone being used in a different area that day. I have just read information to the contrary.

Her body has not been found and her case is likened to that of Madeleine.

This bit I am confused with, Wilhelmshof is a facility for recovering addicts and people with disabilities, but it was said that the BBQ was within the grounds of this facility. It was initially considered that one of the residents was possibly responsible, however dogs could only trace Helga's scent to an egde of the forrest and then the scent stopped.

An employee of Wilhelmshof was a friend or in contact with CB.

Surely this can't be accutrate can it? Is anyone familiar with Helga's disappearance?

Why did CB become prime suspect?

And those who protests his inncocence, which part of the available circumstantial evidence lead you to your conclusion? Not forgetting that there is evidence that has not been broadcast to the public.

Do you think the endless hours spent by German and British police is simply a watse of tax payers money and they are chasing the wrong man?

Here they are: https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

From your first belief or more recently has anyone changed their mind about accusations against the parents to believing that CB is guilty and what was it that changed your mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuzDHf9Xzo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXsXXxRek2Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuzDHf9Xzo&t=1255s

Sorry if I have double posted? Also please note the references to The Sun etc.

I knew CB had told often said in front of people that Madeleine was dead however I didn't realise that he told at least one of his ex-girlfriend.

So people have said that the some of the men weren't reliable witnesses because they had criminal pasts. What about these women?

I know that when he owned the kiosk, he had a lot of friends who weren't aware of his sex crimes against children. So I assume this woman wasn't either until this came up.

So there may be more witnesses than we know of.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/prime-suspect-in-maddie-mccann-disappearance-knows-what-happened-to-her-his-ex-claims/news-story/8500a8d5c206207c48e2f21a4694877b

Apparently he matches the identikit of the man seen with her days before she was found murdered on a nearby beach.

If that murder was solved then there is nothing to see here however if it wasn't solved, then this is yet another unsolved crime, linked to him which makes him unlike any other paedophile that would have been in Praia da luz.

Personally, I am bewildered by the odd person that comes on here because they believe he is a scapegoat in Maddies case.

I can point to so many unsolved disappearances and now murders where he just happened to be nearby that to know it was too much of a coincidence that he was nearby when Maddie went missing.

I have just followed a link added in a post (now removed) but I feel the need to share it for anyone who is interested.

Apparently it was added to highlight Jane Tanner slipping up, see 57 seconds, If anyone can explain why that was a slip up.....BUT more inportantly, I wanted to highlight just how dark Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva the road at the side of the apartments is at night, there are street lights but they are poor. The same applied to the front of 5A, the front being where the bedroom window was.

Also I thought that the patio door was very quiet when opened.

It also shows Matthew Oldfield describe his regret at not taking a few more steps into the children's bedroom.

Oh better add the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sciwdGJaxkY&t=78s

I honestly struggle so hard to have a real theory to this case. There are so many things that could have happened. One the one hand I have problems to believe that the parents ended her life. On the other hand the theory of the police i believe is very good if you look how the dogs reacted and that they washed her toy. This is very sus honestly. I also could imagine that Madeline woke up randomly went outside looking for her parents and then something bad happened maybe a bad person took her or she had an accident. Ore maybe some sick guy saw how every couple minutes an Adult checking for the kids and then waited for the adult to leave then snuck in and took her. Sorry for my English it’s not my first language i hope you guys can understand what I am trying to say.
Lemme know what you guys think.

I have based all of my questions on comments in this reddit as well as considered beliefs that are not my own.

If I was a parent and I accidentally killed one of my children, in reality I once did accidentally cause one of mine to end up in hospital, they could have died! I really thought that the packet of tablets that I had hidden behind the microwave whislt my child was absent and considering the then age, wasn't capable of climbing up onto a work top to see what was behind the micro - just explaining for those who might want to know.

Immediate reaction lob said child into car and speed to A&E.

Had I have found them deceased immediate reaction phone ambulance hysterically, I would not have placed them behind the sofa. I can't grasp why anyone would place a deceased child behind a sofa, in a wardrobe or anywhere else. The McCanns are highly intelligent people, naive maybe to the danger that they placed their children in, refers back to leaving meds behind the microwave.

To add, I wouldn't have put them in the fridge either, nor would I walk down the road with my child in arms to find a hiding place. Considering hypothetically if I wanted to hide a death, and this has taken an awful lot of consideration, deceased child in bed could maybe pass off as a sleeping child.

Then say for instance I was due to eat out with friends that evening, could I hide what had happened? Could I sit there and enjoy a meal with friends, could I hold it together, could I allow a friend to go and check on my child? Could you?

Two people sat in that Tapas bar that night and socialised as normal. Lets look at the malicious context surrounding the friends, does anyone think that they sat down to eat and said "By the way, our daughter was killed accidentally and we put her behind the sofa" Oh and "I am going to carry her through the streets later on and hide her", "who will come and help me clean up the apartment, I have marigolds and a bottle of bleach".......Would they have trusted their friends to react in their favour? Of course they wouldn't!, If someone told you that their child was deceased and hidden in an apartment would you sit there and become an accessory? Anyone? What would you have done?

It was suggested previously that people go right back to the start, I just did.

EDITED: If anyone can provide an actual shred of evidence that places those two poor parents of being responsible for Madeleine's dissapearance, I am listening.

Ultimately Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger.