Dannz

by Dannz 23.02.19 21:37

One reason for faking the date on the Last Photo and producing very few colour photos would be to give the impression that Gerry McCann had pale skin on the day of Madeleine's disappearance. The Smiths' had seen a man with tanned skin carrying a child. This photo would give a different impression. The Last Photo also has the advantage of concealing his eyes behind large sunglasses.

Although it is not always clear in the lighting and against the colour of top he has selected to wear, in the appeals made by the McCanns on May 4th and May 5th, Gerry McCann appears significantly more tanned than in the Last Photograph. see e.g. this link to: May 5th photo

I think the notion that Madeleine died before the 3rd is unlikely; the fabrications are too flawed and inept to have been planned and prepared.

by **sharonl** 23.02.19 22:16

Dannz wrote:One reason for faking the date on the Last Photo and producing very few colour photos would be to give the impression that Gerry McCann had pale skin on the day of Madeleine's disappearance. The Smiths' had seen a man with tanned skin carrying a child. This photo would give a different impression. The Last Photo also has the advantage of concealing his eyes behind large sunglasses.

Although it is not always clear in the lighting and against the colour of top he has selected to wear, in the appeals made by the McCanns on May 4th and May 5th, Gerry McCann appears significantly more tanned than in the Last Photograph. see e.g. this link to: May 5th photo

I think the notion that Madeleine died before the 3rd is unlikely; the fabrications are too flawed and inept to have been planned and prepared.

Highly unlikely, Gerry was not only seen by many people in the area, GNR officers, PJ officers etc. his mugshot was splattered all over the media for days to come. We all know that he was tanned, no one pic is going to tell us otherwise.

by Verdi 24.02.19 0:02

Dannz wrote: The Smiths' had seen a man with tanned skin carrying a child. This photo would give a different impression.

Martin Smith's witness statement taken three weeks after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - 26th May 2007

— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
— Regarding the description of the individual who carried the child he states that: he was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had an average build, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same.
— He states that the child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. She was a child of normal build, about a metre in height though not being absolutely certain of that as she was being carried. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not notice her eyes as she was asleep and her eyelids were closed.
— She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any wrap or blanket. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

This is getting very tedious.

By the way, welcome to the forum Danzz.

by **sharonl** 24.02.19 8:54

Sirens going off, helicopters above, police cars and bikes everywhere, Kate going off, everything brought to a halt whilst everyone searches the area calling Madeleine, obviously asking everyone if they had seen a small girl, and the Smith family walking by with not one of them thinking to ask what was going on. Really?

If the Smiths were in the area at this time, they knew just as well as anyone else that a child had gone missing.

by Verdi 24.02.19 19:50

sharonl wrote:Sirens going off, helicopters above, police cars and bikes everywhere, Kate going off, everything brought to a halt whilst everyone searches the area calling Madeleine, obviously asking everyone if they had seen a small girl, and the Smith family walking by with not one of them thinking to ask what was going on. Really?

If the Smiths were in the area at this time, they knew just as well as anyone else that a child had gone missing.

Precisely!

An unusual commotion arouses curiosity - it's human nature.

by Phoebe 25.02.19 0:17

The police were not informed of Madeleine's disappearance until 10.41 p.m. on the night of May 3rd. Given this fact I fail to understand how there could have been-

"Sirens going off, helicopters above, police cars and bikes, people searching and calling for Madeleine" at 10 p.m. -

"While the Smiths were walking by with not one of them thinking to ask what was going on".

At 10 p.m. the Smiths, and indeed anyone else, eg - Maria Manuel Martins Da Silva, who were out and about, saw no sign of anything amiss and definitely no police presence, let alone sirens and helicopters! It would have been a miracle if they had since the police would not be contacted until 41 minutes later!

From Maria's P.J. statement - at 10 p.m. on May 3rd-

"she did not detect any movement of people or vehicles, and nothing struck her as abnormal in that zone that would have raised her suspicions;"

by Verdi 25.02.19 0:27

Poetic licence Phoebe, poetic licence.

by skyrocket 25.02.19 8:17

duplicate post - deleted (apologies but I have trouble posting from my MacBook - when I send it wipes half the post out. Only solution seems to be writing in Word and cutting/pasting! Not an issue but keep forgetting to do it.).

by skyrocket 25.02.19 8:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - but equally, there are several interviewees who state clearly that there were people searching/shouting for Madeleine around PDL well before 10 pm. I will refer to the following (courtesy of Nigel via Pamalam) to highlight the point:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I believe that the (first?) alarm was raised at around 9.20 pm, just after the Carpenters had left the Tapas Restaurant and just before/after the Exec Chef had pulled up outside and walked in to the Tapas Bar/Restaurant. Whether the subsequent alarm at around 10.05 pm ever happened or was purposely done to muddy the waters or was a necessity after something had gone wrong with the 9.20 pm timeline, I don't know.

Too much to speculate on.

by Phoebe 25.02.19 11:58

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - according to Stephen Carpenter's statement his wife, the next day, (which was when the Carpenters themselves first learned of Madeleine's disappearance) vaguely recalled someone calling "Madeleine" but could not recall whether it was in an urgent tone and she had paid no attention to it at the time.
Therefore, to suggest that a group of people, walking back from a down town pub around 10 p.m., would have been aware something was amiss is illogical. There was no way for people outside of the complex to have been aware at 10 p.m. of any crisis or police search and certainly no sign of police activity let alone sirens or helicopters. Those working in the Tapas bar may have been aware of when the announcement was made but others, even those closest to the actual scene, such as the Carpenters, the Wilsons, the Moyes, Mrs.Fenn etc. were blissfully ignorant until much later that night.

by Verdi 25.02.19 12:05

If members wish to continue this discussion, would you please do so here..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you.

by Dannz 25.02.19 19:50

Re Evidence of planning (6 A)

The PR Week report of 9 May said to be the source does not say that anyone from Resonate or elsewhere had flown out to Portugal the week before. It says Resonate were brought in by MW i.e. engaged by MW who have their head office in London. This is a misreading of the report. Link

The PR Week item is an unattributed report. It is possible that this MW link and engagement just prior to 3 May was concocted and fed to PR Week to provide cover for Alex Woolfall so it would appear he was there for MW rather than HMG. MW appearing to have engaged Resonate before 3 May would give more credibility to the story he was there for MW. I doubt MW would have paid that cost and Woolfall did nothing in MWs interests.

This is not evidence of pre-planning. If pre-planned it would have been planned for weeks, not days, and events on 3 May would not have been as chaotic and highly suspicious as they were. This was rapid reaction to a crisis that erupted on the night of 3 May, not some pre-planned cunning clever plot with serious basic errors raising immediate police suspicion.

by **sharonl** 25.02.19 21:10

The pool photograph was not made available for a few weeks by which time, all the other holiday makers would have gone home.

Its is unlikely that holiday makers, just relaxing, would remember the exact day and time of any activity unless it was a pre-planned excursion or something.

Then we had Jim Gamble urging all holidaymakers to send their snaps to him.

The risk of anyone going to the PJ with a holiday snap which included the McCanns and claiming it was another day is very low, and all the McCanns would need to say is, "yes we stopped by the pool for a short while that day too".

by Dannz 25.02.19 22:36

This is not proof that the Smiths did not see Gerry. Consider the Smiths were truthful and McCanns dishonest and this was Gerry with Madeleine. As described by Mrs Smith, Madeleine was a wearing a long sleeve top. The McCanns might want it to be believed that these were the pyjamas so that anyone who might have seen Gerry carrying Madeleine would suppose this to be some random stranger as the pyjamas do not match the description put out.

If you believe McCanns concealed Madeleine’s death, why expect them to be honest about what she was wearing? To me the Smiths seem credible. It also seems too chaotic, contradictory and suspicious to have been pre-planned.

by Dannz 25.02.19 23:56

Hi All,

I never paid much attention to the McCann story until last week when a YouTube video on the McCanns by a US profiler caught my attention. Then I watched Richard Halls video with Hyatt’s Statement Analysis. And so on....

IMO if it had been pre-planned, it wouldn’t have been nearly so suspicious with glaring lies, inconsistencies and fabrications. I largely go with Amaral’s view. The evidence points to manslaughter by gross negligence and a rushed cover up with Gerry sighted by the Smiths going off to conceal Madeleine’s body. I think Gerry has very sensitive information that HMG legitimately need to keep under wraps and he has them over a barrel. Hence Alex Woolfall, Consul, Ambassador etc. arriving on 4th May or shortly after and the exceptional treatment and cover up. High level paedophile rings and confusion over dates are to misdirect into endless futile speculation and conspiracy theory.

I think a reconstruction establishing a timeline of key events from 20:00 3 May to 08:00 4 May is a good place to start. Unpicking that would answer a lot.

by Verdi 26.02.19 0:34

Consider this a case of labyrinths more blinding than Hampton Court maze. Consider this a case necessitating an extraordinary level of secrecy. Consider this a case of bribery and corruption. Consider this a case that must be silenced to the grave.

Mrs Smith didn't comment on anything, not by way of an official witness statement.

Martin Smith nor his son Peter Smith nor his daughter Aoife Smith nor any other member of his family witnessed Gerry McCann walking the streets of Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007 carrying a corpse or a substitute child. The mere idea is beyond preposterous.

I appreciate the desire to be controversial, the need to detract from the true purpose of CMoMM just for the hell of it but please let's be realistic.

Please no added blah

Next....

by Verdi 26.02.19 0:47

Goodness me - you have been busy since last week. That's some going taking in all that information in only a few days, many have been following this case for years and still haven't achieved that level of connaissance.

Hats off to you howdy

!

May I ask, who is the American profiler you refer to?

My immediate thought was to move your post here to the Smithman thread you've already commented on, as that appears to be your major concern.

I will however leave it here for the moment to give it time to develop and determine it's rightful place on the forum.

Thank you for your comments.

by Verdi 26.02.19 1:07

The focal point is not pre-planning - at least not for the more discerning well informed observer.

Rather, it is a reaction to a tragedy that occurred earlier in the week.

Think about it - there is a great difference.

Having, as you say, watched Richard D Hall's videos and the statement analysis by Peter Hyatt and whatever else, I'm astonished that you are so keen to promote an opposing view.

Your prerogative of course.

by Dannz 26.02.19 4:05

Thanks for this Verdi.

The name was Pat Brown. This was the short video https://youtu.be/RaLZ6vf0Ybc in an NZ channel.

It was intriguing.

It’s not necessarily taking in a lot of information- it is recognising the significant details.e.g. the report in the Telegraph at 12:01 from an FCO spokesperson. FCO do not do that. GM must have twisted the arm of HMG to get that - in order to get publicity which would improve their leverage. It’s been through 4 PMs of both parties: it has to be something legitimate but highly sensitive that GM is holding to ransom.

Smithman isn’t my major concern. Instead it is getting a clear timeline of the relevant events. Rather than trying to decide whether or not Smithman was GM, it’s better to develop alternative hypotheses. “100% proof” of something which isn’t is only leading oneself astray.

As I see it, GM would have initially hidden the body at the church which had construction work at the time (e.g. in a concrete mixer). They would have visited the church beforehand and possibly was on a jogging route too. They are more Catholic than I first supposed and taking her to a church would be natural (more so than throwing into a well). On 7th they get the keys to the church. Later the priest speaks of feeling deceived by the McCanns. Smithman is seen on route to the church. A new Anglican priest was appointed very shortly after. This fits timeline for GM to be back at 22:03 when GM is seen running to the pool area by a waiter at the time KM starts screaming on the balcony (as swiftly pre-arranged). Put another way, given the timings, the best route to the church and the movements of the Smiths, GM would run into them at approx 21:54. Smithman is just a part of the bigger overall theory of the case.

It’s a tangle, but all the pieces can fit together.

The difficulty is that the full truth of the matter may potentially endanger legitimate national interests. e.g. damage that GM might do could for example damage MI5 counterterrorism with potential for significant loss of life from failure to prevent a terror attack. If you were PM how would you balance that? (I have no inside info; such a possibility just should be considered).

by Dannz 26.02.19 4:44

Yes, reaction to a tragedy that occurred earlier that week does indeed make much more sense. But the fabrications are so transparent that I find it hard to suppose anyone having any more than an hour to plan this. The opened window! The blatant negligence. The contradictions in statements etc. etc. GM said to GNR officer attending that the window was opened when he first noticed that Madeleine was missing (!) The Tapas 9 don’t start to get a straight story until Woolfall steps in the next day.

Consider if the death was as Amaral conjectured. Fixating on it being earlier may mislead. I would look at developing both hypothesises, however I think panicked response at 21:30-22:00 on 3 May is the most plausible giving the chaotic shambles of a plan that they had. I can’t see any evidence that shows she died earlier (and I have read the arguments posted elsewhere on this site).

Hyatt doesn’t conclude she died on an earlier day. There is deception over time - on night of 3rd. Amaral is convincing too. Consider also the possibility that the Last Photo and tampering of the photo record might be disinformation. Who was responsible for this? Alex Woolfall. Messing with stuff like that throws confusion and diverts from the night of 3 May. It’s worked well so far.

by **sharonl** 26.02.19 8:15

There is strong evidence that Madeleine died earlier. This can be found in Petermacs' book, Richard Halls' documentaries, HiDeHos' videos, the What happened to Madeleine McCann blog, and on many threads on this forum. MMRG also agree and have forwarded their evidence to the Portuguese authorities and this has been accepted by the Portuguese AG.

The theory is also accepted by many of our members and others. This was widely discussed and researched prior to our conclusions. I am sure that since the evidence is already published on this forum, there is little to be gained by going over old ground and repeating what has already been debated many times.

Please refer to the above publications for our evidence

by worriedmum 26.02.19 8:37

Verdi wrote:Consider this a case of labyrinths more blinding than Hampton Court maze. Consider this a case necessitating an extraordinary level of secrecy. Consider this a case of bribery and corruption. Consider this a case that must be silenced to the grave.

Mrs Smith didn't comment on anything, not by way of an official witness statement.

Martin Smith nor his son Peter Smith nor his daughter Aoife Smith nor any other member of his family witnessed Gerry McCann walking the streets of Luz on the night of 3rd May 2007 carrying a corpse or a substitute child. The mere idea is beyond preposterous.

I appreciate the desire to be controversial, the need to detract from the true purpose of CMoMM just for the hell of it but please let's be realistic.

Please no added

Next....

I'm sorry but I find it too difficult to doubt the truthfulness of a whole family, including a child. And why would Mr Smith have the reaction he did when he saw Gerry McCann descending the plane steps?

by Guest 26.02.19 10:32

sharonl wrote:There is strong evidence that Madeleine died earlier. This can be found in Petermacs' book, Richard Halls' documentaries, HiDeHos' videos, the What happened to Madeleine McCann blog, and on many threads on this forum. MMRG also agree and have forwarded their evidence to the Portuguese authorities and this has been accepted by the Portuguese AG.

The theory is also accepted by many of our members and others. This was widely discussed and researched prior to our conclusions. I am sure that since the evidence is already published on this forum, there is little to be gained by going over old ground and repeating what has already been debated many times.

Please refer to the above publications for our evidence

Whilst not the intent, I think the above is a bit mis-leading to our new member. You start out with there is strong evidence then go on to state that it's just a theory. Breaking it down...…
The evidence you state (book, videos etc.) are an interpretation of the files / weather etc. and could possibly be termed circumstantial at best, they are actually theories in practice (IMO).

The 'evidence' has not (as far as I'm aware) been accepted by Portuguese AG, it has been received / acknowledged as received, accepted and received are two entirely different animals (please clarify if I'm right or wrong, every day is a school day!)

It may very well be 'old ground' but a new and different set of eyes could very well spot something that has not been noted before (they might come up with a theory, alternative or otherwise which turns out to be correct, we won't know unless we let them 'bring it to the table'). New 'blood' and new ideas are welcome in my book otherwise we'd be just as well shutting up shop saying we've solved the case (not that it is ours to solve).

by Verdi 26.02.19 11:28

worriedmum wrote:I'm sorry but I find it too difficult to doubt the truthfulness of a whole family, including a child. And why would Mr Smith have the reaction he did when he saw Gerry McCann descending the plane steps?

It was only Martin Smith who testified that he was 60/80% certain that Gerry McCann could have been the stranger his family witnessed walking the streets of Luz on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007. He said himself the only person who agreed with him was his wife, as his wife declined to be interviewed this incidental can only be taken as hearsay - second hand information.

Even when Martin Smith allegedly had his moment of awakening when he saw television footage of the McCanns arrival back at the UK - only by the way he was holding a child, the customary way of holding a sleepy child, still it took him some days before reporting his revelation to the police. Just like it took him three weeks to get around to reporting the sighting he and his family allegedly witnessed on the night of 3rd May.

This subject has had more coverage on CMoMM than any other, I really haven't the time nor inclination to keep going over the same ground. I'm not trying to force anyone to think against their own will, you are at liberty to decide for yourself and of course express your opinions openly.

by Verdi 26.02.19 11:45

Aha, Pat Brown - I should have guessed. Pat Brown is at variance with some of the conclusions of years of research undertaken by CMoMM members and a variety of other dedicated interested parties. Undoubtedly she is looking at the case from afar through the eyes of a criminal profiler - she has visited Luz and met with Goncalo Amaral so it can't be denied that she has given the case quite a lot of thought. She is however a professional with an active career to persue, she's not in a position to dedicate 100% of her time to the mystery of Madeleine McCann.

I'm sorry to say that on the whole I find your commentary rather confusing - this is not a criticism, just an observation to explain why I can't respond. If I'm reading you correctly, it all seems a bit far fetched - a la Bondesque with little or no evidence to work on!

As I said, I will watch and see how this develops before deciding it's rightful place on the forum. Perhaps other members are in-tune with your ideas.