Re: Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant'

by polyenne 11.04.17 12:14

See latest Rich Hall film......a small cluette

by Lord Sleuth 11.04.17 12:16

I have and I knew who it was before I saw the film.
See my previous posts.

by Verdi 11.04.17 12:32

If Gerry discovered a dead Madeleine late on the night of the 3rd why was there no trace of her D.N.A. in the apartment

Because the Portuguese forensics were NOT looking for Madeleine's DNA !!! A clean reference sample of Madeleine's DNA was later required to confirm parentage and for the process of elimination when determining if there was DNA in apartment 5a that shouldn't be there, i.e. an intruder. Normal policing, nothing extraordinary or sinister.

Of course Madeleine's DNA would be evident in apartment 5a, because she had stayed in the apartment, albeit only briefly. You need only ask yourself, why the McCanns or anybody else, would wish to destroy evidence of Madeleine's presence in the apartment - why would they want people to believe Madeleine was never in apartment 5a? If, however, they wish to destroy evidence of a crime, that's a whole new kettle of sea bass but has nothing to do with the presence of Madeleine's DNA per se.

I do wish people wouldn't keep repeating this type of nonsense year after year.

by Phoebe 11.04.17 12:47

Basic policing would see the PJ. collecting Madeleine's bedding and securing it as part of the chain of evidence. Obviously they would have been hoping that the "abductor" might have left some trace when lifting Medeleine from her bed. They recovered none, nor could they recover a sample of Madeleine's D.N.A from the pillow case she had just lain on for hours. This suggests the bedding had been changed since she last lay there. I also thought the police were surprised by the dearth of D.N.A from any source in the apartment. Forensic photos and reports identify very few areas of clear, individual D.N.A. residue. No one suggested they were trying to erase Madeleine's D.N.A. Rather that they had cleaned the apartment, to cover up something else.

by hogwash 11.04.17 13:11

Cheshire Cat wrote:I have watched the Richard Hall films and they are interesting and present arguments and evidence using a logical and structured approach.

Whilst I don't dismiss Richard Halls film I still gravitate to Pat Browns view (which is supportive of GA's findings). Pat has also seen right through Grange.

I believe Mr Smith had a genuine flash-back moment when he saw Gerry alighting from the aircraft and carrying the child.

Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant' - Page 2 Pat10

So Martin's memory was jogged by seeing Gerry alighting the aircraft carrying Sean but the abductor was holding Madeleine over his arms.

And why carry a dead body around PDL when you could put it in the blue bag that was "big enough to hide a tennis racket in" and no one would be suspicious at all? Just go straight to the beach undetected carrying the bag and hide the body. Then go back at a later date to collect the blue bag, undetected.

Maybe Martin and his family did see someone carrying a child the way Gerry was carrying Sean off the aircraft, but it doesn't mean it was anyone other than someone carrying their own 'alive' child.

Just as Tannerman turned out to be CrecheDad.

Good point by Phoebe, though - why didn't the McCanns give the playground photo's to the police instead of the old one of Maddie?

by **Jill Havern** 11.04.17 13:34

Why indeed.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.04.17 13:39

Cheshire Cat wrote:I believe Mr Smith had a genuine flash-back moment when he saw Gerry alighting from the aircraft and carrying the child.

But there are multiple problems with this view.

For a start, all the three Smiths, when interviewed in Portugal on 26 March, unanimously declared that they would never be able to recognise the man they said they saw if they were to see him again.

Next there is the problem that the Smiths described Wochioech Krokowski not Gerry McCann, as also did Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco: 'Not a tourist, cloth clothes, classic shoes, dark jacket etc. etc.

Then, if he had a 'genuine' flashback moment and really believed he had seen Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine - dead, what on earth was he doing running into the McCann Team's embrace in January 2008 and telling the world to look for Madeleine and her abductor?

Besides all that, there are the multiple contradictions in the Smiths' pwn account of events as 've patiently set out on all the 'SMITHMAN' threads.

Finally, Operation Grange and the McCanns are still looking for Smithman, so far as we know, he was 'the centre of our focus'.

I don't think for one moment that Goncalo Amaral - with all that we now know in 2017 - would seriously think that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann, or anyone else. He would surely be far more interested on how he may have been deceived by the McCanns regarding the Last Photo, and by Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington regarding the alleged 'high tea' at 5pm on 3rd May.

And I think he would want to have a very careful look at the 'Make-Up Photo' which was probably taken on Sunday 29 April.

.

by Cheshire Cat 11.04.17 13:44

hogwash wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:I have watched the Richard Hall films and they are interesting and present arguments and evidence using a logical and structured approach.

Whilst I don't dismiss Richard Halls film I still gravitate to Pat Browns view (which is supportive of GA's findings). Pat has also seen right through Grange.

I believe Mr Smith had a genuine flash-back moment when he saw Gerry alighting from the aircraft and carrying the child.

So Martin's memory was jogged by seeing Gerry alighting the aircraft carrying Sean but the abductor was holding Madeleine over his arms.

And why carry a dead body around PDL when you could put it in the blue bag that was "big enough to hide a tennis racket in" and no one would be suspicious at all? Just go straight to the beach undetected carrying the bag and hide the body. Then go back at a later date to collect the blue bag, undetected.

Maybe Martin and his family did see someone carrying a child the way Gerry was carrying Sean off the aircraft, but it doesn't mean it was anyone other than someone carrying their own 'alive' child.

Just as Tannerman turned out to be CrecheDad.

Good point by Phoebe, though - why didn't the McCanns give the playground photo's to the police instead of the old one of Maddie?

When Martin Smith saw Gerry McCann carrying the child (assuming he did), the child was described as being held upright - the British TV reconstructions twisted Martin Smith's sighting to match the Tanner sighting in terms of how the child was being carried - i.e. 'abductor' with arms out straight and child laying horizontal. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

by Verdi 11.04.17 15:41

Phoebe wrote:Basic policing would see the PJ. collecting Madeleine's bedding and securing it as part of the chain of evidence. Obviously they would have been hoping that the "abductor" might have left some trace when lifting Medeleine from her bed. They recovered none, nor could they recover a sample of Madeleine's D.N.A from the pillow case she had just lain on for hours. This suggests the bedding had been changed since she last lay there. I also thought the police were surprised by the dearth of D.N.A from any source in the apartment. Forensic photos and reports identify very few areas of clear, individual D.N.A. residue. No one suggested they were trying to erase Madeleine's D.N.A. Rather that they had cleaned the apartment, to cover up something else.

I believe you are confusing the general issue of forensics and DNA in isolation. The Portuguese forensic team undertook a thorough examination of apartment 5a on Friday 4th May 2007, in accordance with basic policing protocol - unless of course one trusts the word of the UK media and their claims of 'botched investigation by bent disgraced cop' etc.

Here is the PJ forensic report on the examination of apartment 5a on Friday 4th May 2007..

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

by Phoebe 11.04.17 16:21

Verdi wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Basic policing would see the PJ. collecting Madeleine's bedding and securing it as part of the chain of evidence. Obviously they would have been hoping that the "abductor" might have left some trace when lifting Medeleine from her bed. They recovered none, nor could they recover a sample of Madeleine's D.N.A from the pillow case she had just lain on for hours. This suggests the bedding had been changed since she last lay there. I also thought the police were surprised by the dearth of D.N.A from any source in the apartment. Forensic photos and reports identify very few areas of clear, individual D.N.A. residue. No one suggested they were trying to erase Madeleine's D.N.A. Rather that they had cleaned the apartment, to cover up something else.
I believe you are confusing the general issue of forensics and DNA in isolation. The Portuguese forensic team undertook a thorough examination of apartment 5a on Friday 4th May 2007, in accordance with basic policing protocol - unless of course one trusts the word of the UK media and their claims of 'botched investigation by bent disgraced cop' etc.

Here is the PJ forensic report on the examination of apartment 5a on Friday 4th May 2007..

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

Thank you Verdi. I have already read same but another look will do no harm. As for "confusing the general issue of forensics and D.N.A" the same report states "They began the detailed observation of the (target) apartment interior ending with search and recovery of forensic trace material". Having full confidence in the P.J. I presume they tested for D.N.A. vestiges which might be linked to an abductor emanating from any area with which he might have had contact. Later when seeking a D.N.A sample from Madeleine I believe it's reasonable to assume the pillowcase afforded none as they had to rely instead on a pillowcase from Rothley to obtain a sample of Madeleine's D.N.A

by Liz Eagles 11.04.17 16:22

The only tangible thing is the photographs that were chosen for release.

Tannerman and the Smith sighting emanated from witness statements. How reliable those witnesses are/were is of major interest but not as crucial IMO as the chosen released photographs of Madeleine.

To this end I disagree with Pat Brown.

The Smith sighting is a red herring, just as Tannerman was.

So, for me the photographs tell a very different story - not the one about which photo my daughter chose to release in her book about the birth of her daughter and whether she was being kind to me because I don't like having my photo taken. That's baloney Pat and you know it.

The photos are more important than the sightings imo.

by Phoebe 11.04.17 17:08

I took at look at another website reporting on Pat Brown's article. Posters there are claiming that the Tannerman sighting was only released after the Smiths gave their "detailed description" to the P.J. This has gone uncorrected. Don't people at least do basic research before making claims? It is a matter of recorded fact -"The Herald" 2nd July 08 "May 25th 2007: police issue a description of a possible suspect who was seen in the area of Praia de Luz on the night Madeleine disappeared. It is based on evidence from Jane Tanner,". (just one example) Kate McCann, in "madeleine" also cites June 25th as the day police yielded to their pressure to make Jane's sighting public. The Smiths made their first report to the P.J on the 26th May, the day after the Tanner sighting and descriptions were made public. Thus are myths born and allowed to flourish.

by Cheshire Cat 11.04.17 18:53

There is one very fundamental difference - Pat believes, as does Goncalo Amaral, that the man Smith saw was indeed Gerry McCann. Grange and the McCann's have been very careful to milk the Smith statements for all they are worth whilst removing the inconvenient fact that Mr Smith claims he saw Gerry McCann.

by polyenne 11.04.17 19:40

Sorry if this has already been detailed has anyone ever established precisely who did what and at what time from say 9.30pm until midnight on 3/5.
In other words, COULD GM have been Smithman ?

by JulieC 11.04.17 19:58

Cheshire Cat wrote:There is one very fundamental difference - Pat believes, as does Goncalo Amaral, that the man Smith saw was indeed Gerry McCann. Grange and the McCann's have been very careful to milk the Smith statements for all they are worth whilst removing the inconvenient fact that Mr Smith claims he saw Gerry McCann.

I find it really hard to believe that someone would carry their dead child through the streets.

Where would they dispose of the body? It's obviously been successful as nothing found for 10 years but disposing of a body on the fly like that was incredibly dangerous.

I'm more of the opinion Madeleine died earlier in the week, so this idea just doesn't ring true to me. Having said that almost nothing in this case rings true!

by polyenne 11.04.17 20:04

I don't believe it was GM or Madeleine as (a) her body was already some place else and (b) why would he risk the abduction theory by carrying her himself ?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.04.17 20:50

Cheshire Cat wrote:There is one very fundamental difference - Pat believes, as does Goncalo Amaral, that the man Smith saw was indeed Gerry McCann.

Grange and the McCanns have been very careful to milk the Smith statements for all they are worth whilst removing the inconvenient fact that Mr Smith claims he saw Gerry McCann.

@ Cheshire Cat

Regarding your first sentence above, you are right about Pat Brown's view, but not about Goncalo Amaral's view.

Put simply, Goncalo Amaral's position in September 2007 was that he was 'interested in' Martin Smith's evidence, first given on 20 September to an Irish police officer, that he was fairly certain that the man he said he'd seen on 3 May 2007 was Gerry McCann. That was all.

Amaral was removed from the investigation 12 days later. I think, putting it at its highest, we can say that that Goncalo Amaral believed Martin Smith and the Smiths were telling the truth on 26 May, and that, after 20 September, he perhaps considered that Martin Smith may have seen Gerry McCann carrying his dead daughter.

Regarding your second sentence above, that's absolutely correct - especially the bit about 'milking' the Smith sighting.

Dealing with your point upthread about how Martin Smith said the man was supposed to be carrying Madeleine, yes IIRC he did speak of the man carrying him on his left shoulder. I think again IIRC without looking it up that his son Peter and daughter Aoife said something slightly different.

It is good to see you back on the forum though clearly our views on the truthfulness of Martin Smith diverge.

by Verdi 11.04.17 21:14

Phoebe wrote:
Verdi wrote:Thank you Verdi. I have already read same but another look will do no harm. As for "confusing the general issue of forensics and D.N.A" the same report states "They began the detailed observation of the (target) apartment interior ending with search and recovery of forensic trace material". Having full confidence in the P.J. I presume they tested for D.N.A. vestiges which might be linked to an abductor emanating from any area with which he might have had contact. Later when seeking a D.N.A sample from Madeleine I believe it's reasonable to assume the pillowcase afforded none as they had to rely instead on a pillowcase from Rothley to obtain a sample of Madeleine's D.N.A

It's no use having another look if you can't understand the concept of the subject; you continue to assume - presume - suppose - speculate - believe without foundation. For example, why do you assume that a pillowcase allegedly used by Madeleine McCann 'afforded' no DNA sample which necessitated Gerry McCann collecting a pillowcase allegedly used by Madeleine from their home in Rothley on or around 21st May 2007? There is no indication in the PJ files to suggest that a pillowcase from apartment 5a was analyzed for forensic evidence or DNA - hairs from the pillow, the bed and surrounding area yes, Madeleine's DNA no.

If a DNA profile is required for any reason, it is 100% necessary that a clean DNA sample is produced, clean as in uncontaminated, in order to establish a DNA profile. DNA harvested from a pillowcase used, as in this instance, by Madeleine McCann in a holiday apartment would not constitute a clean DNA sample - a source such as a hairbrush, toothbrush, sunhat, sandals, socks, frock, swimwear, under garments, nightware - such strictly personal items would be a a good source of DNA to establish a clean profile. Or are you thinking that all Madeleine's personal belongings were forensically cleaned?

This subject cannot be confined to a generalisation to fit a perceived misconception, it's complex so best avoided if blinded by
ignorance.

by Roidininki 11.04.17 21:35

polyenne wrote:RI don't believe it was GM or Madeleine as (a) her body was already some place else and (b) why would he risk the abduction theory by carrying her himself ?

What if it was GM carrying one of the other children , to distract,
as Hall has suggested , and support the claim of Madeleine being abducted .

by Phoebe 11.04.17 21:41

I am perfectly capable of "understanding the concept". From whence came Madeleine's D.N.A. sample for comparison? Did or did not Gerry return with a pillowcase from Rothley? As for assumptions, I have every faith, (while not being carried away by any delusions of omniscience) that mine are as valid as your own, though perhaps less vehemently advanced.

by polyenne 11.04.17 21:53

Roidininki
I don't much care WHO GM might have been carrying, if it was he himself, he's completely jeopardising the abduction theory.
Unless you think he wanted people to think he abducted his own child !

by Roidininki 11.04.17 22:18

polyenne wrote:Roidininki
I don't much care WHO GM might have been carrying, if it was he himself, he's completely jeopardising the abduction theory.
Unless you think he wanted people to think he abducted his own child !

No, he wanted to make sure someone spotted him but not all that clearly to make it look like Madeleine was being carried away THAT NIGHT but in fact she'd already gone .

by **Tony Bennett** 11.04.17 22:47

Roidininki wrote:
polyenne wrote:Roidininki
No, he wanted to make sure someone spotted him but not all that clearly to make it look like Madeleine was being carried away THAT NIGHT but in fact she'd already gone .

@ Roidininki

Are you serious?

He wanted to 'make sure someone spotted him'?

Are you sure?

But he 'didn't want to be spotted too clearly'?

Have you really thought about this?

And upthread you say that Gerry was maybe carrying another parent's sleeping child - who looked just like Madeleine?

So you think Gerry wanted to make sure he was spotted (but not too clearly) and asked another parent: 'Look, I know it's late and dark and cold, but could I just borrow your child, put her in some whitish or pinkish pyjamas, and wander the dark streets of Praia da Luz for quarter of an hour or so' You see, I want to be seen - but not too clearly?

Does this theory make sense to you?

by Phoebe 11.04.17 23:48

Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile.

If I can be of further assistance or you require a CJA statement please do not hesitate to contact me at the laboratory on 01937 548287.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Ann Denton
FORENSIC SCIENTIST
Date: 28 June 2007

by Verdi 12.04.17 0:33

Phoebe wrote:I am perfectly capable of "understanding the concept". From whence came Madeleine's D.N.A. sample for comparison? Did or did not Gerry return with a pillowcase from Rothley? As for assumptions, I have every faith, (while not being carried away by any delusions of omniscience) that mine are as valid as your own, though perhaps less vehemently advanced.

If this is directed @Verdi..

1. If you understand the concept, why then do you continue to confuse between forensic evidence generally and DNA in isolation?

2. What comparison?

3. According the the PJ files, the Rothley pillow case turned up at the UK Forensic Science Laboratories on 22nd May 2007 as a surrogate reference sample, so no, Gerry McCann didn't return to Portugal with a pillowcase in his back-pack.

4. I make no assumptions unless I say so.

The Rothley pillowcase is an enigma - follow the trail beginning 21st May 2007 and see if you can solve the riddle.

Pat Brown - is still claiming, like Operation Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is the key to solving the Madeleine McCann mystery - and dismissing the evidence the Last Photo was taken on Sunday as 'irrelevant'

Pat Brown or Rchard Hall