Why did the Smiths return to Praia da Luz in May 2007?

[AnneGuedes]

- Members of the Smith family went over in May 2007 to do a reconstruction of their sighting.

No, they didn't come to do a reconstitution, but to testify.
They indicated the places where each of the 3 groups had crossed Smithman.
The situation in September was different. You don't need a picture, Carana. Smithman had a possibly identified figure. Reconstitute with him would have been useful.

[Carana]

No, they didn't come to do a reconstitution, but to testify.
They indicated the places where each of the 3 groups had crossed Smithman.
The situation in September was different. You don't need a picture, Carana. Smithman had a possibly identified figure. Reconstitute with him would have been useful.

They came to testify, yes, but also to show where each of them were when they saw Smithman. What would you call that, if not a reconstruction?

What Amaral wanted them to do in September seems to have been the equivalent of a one-person identity parade by watching a video that the Smiths had already seen and was the basis for the parents' doubt in the first place. It's not clear to me what the purpose was. He keeps forgetting that Martin was only 60-80% sure, his wife apparently also thought it could have been him, but none of the kids did... Who was he planning to bring over? Just Martin and his wife to say they were 60-80% sure all over again? Or the entire family when the kids had already disagreed?

[j.rob]

They came to testify, yes, but also to show where each of them were when they saw Smithman. What would you call that, if not a reconstruction?

What Amaral wanted them to do in September seems to have been the equivalent of a one-person identity parade by watching a video that the Smiths had already seen and was the basis for the parents' doubt in the first place. It's not clear to me what the purpose was. He keeps forgetting that Martin was only 60-80% sure, his wife apparently also thought it could have been him, but none of the kids did... Who was he planning to bring over? Just Martin and his wife to say they were 60-80% sure all over again? Or the entire family when the kids had already disagreed?

Odds of 60-80% from an unbiased witness sound pretty good to me. Martin has allowed for the possibility of being mistaken, he has factored in that is it not sensible or realistic to be 100% certain about something one saw.


Given this, it is more than a little bit strange how Kate and Gerry and the team were pretty much 100% sure that Madeleine had been abducted from her bed by a stranger (and probably a paedophile).

And it was stranger too that they were pretty sure that the person that (only) Jane Tanner saw (and she is not necessarily an unbiased witnesses)  was the person who abducted Madeleine.  Throughout her book, Kate continues to give weight to Jane Tanner's sighting. At the end of the book she describes Jane Tanner's sighting as 'key' and suggests that the Smith sighting is likely to be the same person. This is despite a 45 minute gap which begs the question that the abductor must have been going round in circles for quite some time.

Perhaps he panicked.

[AnneGuedes]

They came to testify, yes, but also to show where each of them were when they saw Smithman. What would you call that, if not a reconstruction?

What Amaral wanted them to do in September seems to have been the equivalent of a one-person identity parade by watching a video that the Smiths had already seen and was the basis for the parents' doubt in the first place. It's not clear to me what the purpose was. He keeps forgetting that Martin was only 60-80% sure, his wife apparently also thought it could have been him, but none of the kids did... Who was he planning to bring over? Just Martin and his wife to say they were 60-80% sure all over again? Or the entire family when the kids had already disagreed?

The 3 Smiths, on the 26th of May, did no reconstitution. They just localized their position when these 3 crossed Smithman.
A reconstitution would be done at least with the 4 adults and the 2 teenagers, forming the groups as precisely as they were, at the same time of the night and from Kelly's on. Somebody would represent Smithman and the girl, the sound aspect is crucial. Where was Smithman when the first Smiths appeared on top of the steps, etc. That's how reconstitutions are done and this is why it's erroneous to translate it with "reconstruction". It has nothing to do with CW.
How do you know Gonçalo Amaral's plan ?

[Eleanor]

The 3 Smiths, on the 26th of May, did no reconstitution. They just localized their position when these 3 crossed Smithman.
A reconstitution would be done at least with the 4 adults and the 2 teenagers, forming the groups as precisely as they were, at the same time of the night and from Kelly's on. Somebody would represent Smithman and the girl, the sound aspect is crucial. Where was Smithman when the first Smiths appeared on top of the steps, etc. That's how reconstitutions are done and this is why it's erroneous to translate it with "reconstruction". It has nothing to do with CW.
How do you know Gonçalo Amaral's plan ?

The only plan Amaral had was nailing The McCanns.  He talked about it incessantly for several years.

[Carana]

The 3 Smiths, on the 26th of May, did no reconstitution. They just localized their position when these 3 crossed Smithman.
A reconstitution would be done at least with the 4 adults and the 2 teenagers, forming the groups as precisely as they were, at the same time of the night and from Kelly's on. Somebody would represent Smithman and the girl, the sound aspect is crucial. Where was Smithman when the first Smiths appeared on top of the steps, etc. That's how reconstitutions are done and this is why it's erroneous to translate it with "reconstruction". It has nothing to do with CW.
How do you know Gonçalo Amaral's plan ?

This is so misleading as it misrepresents what Martin Smith actually said. He never said he was sure. And who are "they"? From the surrounding details, one could have the impression that the entire family were sure, which is not the case.

What evidence is there in the files that anything concrete had been done to get them over, yet again?


In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, “sent,” the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat’s house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

[AnneGuedes]

This is so misleading as it misrepresents what Martin Smith actually said. He never said he was sure. And who are "they"? From the surrounding details, one could have the impression that the entire family were sure, which is not the case.

What is "this" and "sure" is of what ?
Which "they" are you asking about ?

[AnneGuedes]

What evidence is there in the files that anything concrete had been done to get them over, yet again?

Have you found in the files the bill for the airplanes tickets that the PJ bought for the 3 Smiths in May ? What relevance does it have ?

[Eleanor]

What is "this" and "sure" is of what ?
Which "they" are you asking about ?

You are the one who mentioned  "They" so who were you talking about?

Only Mr. Smith was 60 to 80 percent "Sure". sic.  But if you want to believe what he supposedly said about what his wife said then you need to look at the laws of evidence.  What a man says about what his wife said just won't wash.
That went out with the dark ages.

[stephen25000]

It seems the McCanns have not the right to be guilty.

How dare we assume otherwise.

[pegasus]

There would be concrete evidence of the Irish witnesses being flown back in early October 2007, if Mr Amaral had not been removed and thereby prevented from doing that.
It was a very short time from when witness MS reported his identification, to when Mr Amaral was removed.
How many days between those two events, exactly I'm not sure, but it was not many.

[j.rob]

You are the one who mentioned  "They" so who were you talking about?

Only Mr. Smith was 60 to 80 percent "Sure". sic.  But if you want to believe what he supposedly said about what his wife said then you need to look at the laws of evidence.  What a man says about what his wife said just won't wash.
That went out with the dark ages.

What about what Jane Tanner said she saw? Why is that any more reliable? And why did the McCanns and their friends put so much weight on it. Jane Tanner is a much more biased witness than the Smiths as she is a close friend of the McCanns.  The Smiths are not and it was only after Mr Smith saw Gerry McCann on TV coming off the plane holding his son that he was struck by the resemblance with the man he passed on the streets the night of Madeleine's disappearance.

[j.rob]

This is so misleading as it misrepresents what Martin Smith actually said. He never said he was sure. And who are "they"? From the surrounding details, one could have the impression that the entire family were sure, which is not the case.

What evidence is there in the files that anything concrete had been done to get them over, yet again?


In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, “sent,” the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat’s house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

Whether or not the Smiths went back (and I believe it is in the PF files that they did - they both spent a day giving witness statements) this sighting is vital. It directly contradictions the only piece of 'evidence' the McCanns have ever managed to concoct about a mystery abductor - the Jane Tanner sighting.

The man who the Smiths saw is walking in the opposite direction. In the direction of the beach. He avoids eye contact. He is holding a child that answers the description of Madeleine and who appears 'deeply asleep'. I'm not surprised the McCanns wanted to 'bury' the significance of the Smith sighting. In her book Kate implies it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw which is absurd. Apart from the fact that the description is different, Madeleine's abduction would hardly have chosen to walk around the resort for carrying an abducted child for 45 minutes.

The McCanns really must think that everyone is stupid.

[AnneGuedes]

Odds of 60-80% from an unbiased witness sound pretty good to me. Martin has allowed for the possibility of being mistaken, he has factored in that is it not sensible or realistic to be 100% certain about something one saw.

Absolutely. He was conscious he wasn't, he couldn't be sure. He waited 3 days before going to the Gardai. He was more certain than uncertain, this is his message, take it or leave it.

[AnneGuedes]

The McCanns weren't the only ones to neglect the Smith multiple sighting.
The UK press ignored it totally in spite of being so keen to catch any information and spin it.
Paulo Rebelo followed GA's leads, but not this one.
The MP sent the rog letter concerning the Smith to the HO
The HO didn't send it back to the MP but forwarded it to the LC
The LC put it in the bin.
No conspiracy, no ! Though..