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'

Vote in the Poll

Below is Criminal Profiler Pat Brown's latest offering on the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Regrettably, her mindset is still stuck on the belief that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3rd, and still stuck on believing that Gerry McCann was carrying his dead daughter though the streets of Praia da Luz at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm about Madeleine being missing. 

Her assertion is that 'Smithman' is the 'Key to the Mystery'. It is an almost parrot-like echo of DCI Andy Redwood's comment on the 2013 Crimewatch McCann Special that Smithman is 'the centre of our focus'. Not only that, but the McCanns have aligned themselves with Operation Grange for the past six years and have fully backed Redwood's claims about those two funny e-fits.

So...Pat Brown & Operation Grange & the McCanns are all of one mind.

Of course, in dismissing the very clear relevance of the Last Photo probably having been taken on the Sunday, she also sweeps away all the other evidence that has built up on the past three years that something serious seems to have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday or possibly the Monday morning. 

She writes (spelling as per the original):

Simply, if the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine toward the beach on the evening of May 3, then Madeleine died an accidental death while being neglected and there is no big child sex ring that Gerry and his friends and the British governement are involved in.

She adds this:

But, we can't invalidate or diminish the Smith sighting for one HUGE reason and this is the KEY to the case. The McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting themselves…the McCanns were not interested in the biggest lead in their child going missing…The McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting is the bombshell in the Madeleine McCann case, not some photo that has a half dozen reasons for possibily not being the last one taken of Maddie.



Sorry, Pat, but this really is complete rubbish.

I have shown, especially on the 'SMITHMAN 9' thread, that far from 'refusing to acknowledge the Smith sighting', as Pat claims, the McCanns positively embraced it - and from as early as December 2007. Link:  

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008


Just to recap on the key dates:

Dec 2007 - Brian Kennedy approaches the Smiths and they agree to help the McCanns
Spring 2008 - Smiths meet McCann investigator Henri Exton and approve two efits of men who look quite different from each other
Summer 2008 - Smiths make public statements: 'Help the McCanns, find Madeleine and get the abductor'
Early 2009 - McCann Team work with Smiths, and Martin Smith approves 30-second recording of a summary of his evidence. In doing so, he changes the age of the man he said he saw for the second timem and now says it was '34-35'
May 2009 - Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary has two long segments suggesting that Tannerman and Smithman are one and the same
May 2009 - Tape recording of Martin Smith's evidence posted on McCanns' Find Madeleine website - still there today 
May 2011 - Seven pages of Kate McCann's book 'Madeleine' devoted to proving that Tannerman and Smithman are one and the same
2012 and 2013 - Martin Smith twice meets DCI Redwood in preparation for Redwood declaring Smithman the main suspect
Oct 2013- Operation Grange make Smithman 'the centre of our focus and the McCanns are delighted.

Pat, please check up on these facts.

Pat Brown's article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      

 


MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2017
 
Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case

An awful lot of people believe the "Last Photo" is the key to what happened to Maddie. I disagree. Furthermore, I don't believe it is even very important in the analysis of this case. Worse, it is a huge distraction which has lead to a very complicated theory of Maddie dying on Sunday which lacks the support of solid, credible evidence. Furthermore, it completely negates the most important piece of evidence in the case - The Smith sighting. Let me explain how, as a profiler, the "Last Photo" as any kind of evidence pales in comparison to the Smith sighting and excessive focus on it should be laid to rest.

First of all, the "Last Photo" is not photoshopped. It is a real photo. Now, as to when it was taken, I will accept that it might not have been taken when the McCanns claimed. I will go even further and be willing to accept that one possibility is that it might have been taken on Sunday. So, let's say it was indeed taken on that day. What does that tell us? Here is where the speculation goes off track. As a profiler, all I can tell you is if it is true the photo was taken days before the McCanns claim, there might be a half dozen reasons for them choosing that photo and saying it was taken later in the week, none of which are very alarming to the point of throwing up a huge red flag.

Here is an example of how speculating on certain evidence leads to false conclusions.

My granddaughter was born three years ago. She was born at my daughter's home in a planned home birth quite close to her due date, just a day or so early. At the time of her birth, I lived just thirty minutes from my daughter's home. On the occasion of my granddaughter's first birthday, my daughter cobbled together one of those first-year-of-life albums with photos from birth through turning one. As one peruses the photos, one cannot help notice that there is but one photo of me, the only grandmother, in the whole book and I am conspicuously absent from the birth photos. My ex-husband is shown holding the newborn baby in a couple of photos, the baby's uncles are there with big smiles on their faces, my best friend (who was an "aunty" to my daughter during her childhood) is there helping at the birth, but I am not. Why am I, the grandmother of the baby, the mother of the woman giving birth, not there?

Okay, start speculating.

Did any of you come up with these possibilities?

My daughter and I have a bad relationship and I wasn't invited to the birth.
I was busy doing television and my career and publicity was more important than being at the birth.
I was off traveling - having planned a vacation around the time of my daughter's due date.
I was opposed to home birth an refused to show up and support my daughter's choice.

Yeah, none of these are true. Oh, and, wait, look here! What is this?
 

 
Yes, that is a photo of me at the birth! What the heck? Where did that come from and why, if it isn't a photoshopped picture or a photo of me with another baby, or a photo of me with the baby on a day sometime after the birth, why wasn't that photo in my daughter's picture book? Why would it be left out?

First of all, let's talk about if the photo is actually me at the birth. Yes, it is a real photo. I was there. Not only was I there, but I chose to be there under stressful circumstances. Oh, no, not that I had any problems with my daughter; our relationship was fine. And I am a supporter of home birth; my son, David, was born at home. In fact, I went with my daughter to her final midwifery appointment and as soon as she called and told me she was in labor, I raced over to her house. I would never have planned a vacation during the last month of her pregnancy and I would have turned down all television and work-related jobs to be present at the birth. In fact, the stressful circumstance which made my presence difficult was that my mother was dying in another state and I had to choose whether to be at her deathbed or at my granddaughter's birth.

I had been at my father's side when he died just a year earlier and I had been making trips back and forth to New York to help my sister care for my mother in her last year of life as she declined with Alzheimers. After she fell and was hospitalized for the last time, my other sister went up to New York to help as my daughter's due date was nearing. I then had to the choose to be with my mother or to be with my daughter, not knowing exactly when my daughter would give birth or my mother would leave this world. I did what I thought my mother would sanction; I stayed for the birth. My mother died the same day, just hours after the baby was born, so I was unable to fly there after the birth to be there in time to say goodbye.

So, yes, I was at the birth, totally involved, and none of the negative speculation would have been accurate. So, what about the photo? Quite simple really. My daughter didn't have that photo. I never had sent it over to her. The photos she DID have of me weren't very flattering and she knows I hate bad photos of myself, so she kindly did not include them in the book. Yes, other grandmothers wouldn't have cared if they looked like a wildebeest holding the baby but my daughter knew it would make me shudder. I asked a woman who put a photo of me kissing an iguana in a marketplace during a trip to Nicaragua to pull the photo from Facebook; the iguana's sideview of it's neck and dewlap hanging down looked a whole lot better than mine. I love the photo (privately) but not for public viewing! Okay, call me what you will - proud, vain, whatever - I just hate embarrassingly bad photos of myself at my age.

So, now, see how speculation as to why there was no photo of me at my granddaughter's birth can go so far off course? Now, think about the "Last Photo" of the McCanns. Why would they lie about the time it was taken? I can think of a whole bunch of reasons which are far less bizarre than Maddie being dead by Sunday which then requires a massive plan to hide the fact and cooperation of a great number of people being needed to carry on the charade for the next four days.

Let's see.

1. There WERE other photos of Maddie that week but they were blurred or not very good, so the McCanns chose the pool photo but said it was on Thursday because that made the photo more compelling (the LAST photo! The McCanns like spin and know its value).

2. They were other photos of Maddie but THEY look bad in them (and Kate and Gerry like to look good).

3. There were no other photos past Sunday because once they did their day with the children, they dumped them in care during the day and left them at night because they were busy enjoying their adult vacation and they didn't want to admit not spending time with them.

In other words, it is dangerous to speculate, creating dots that do not necessarily exist and then connecting those dots to create a theory. To me, the "Last Photo" is just a photo and I can find no reason to exaggerate its meaning.

Now, the Smith sighting is a completely different animal. THIS is the KEY to the case and yet it is even poo-poo'ed as having merit, mostly because it invalidates the earlier death theory of Madeleine. Simply, if the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine toward the beach on the evening of May 3, then Madeleine died an accidental death while being neglected and there is no big child sex ring that Gerry and his friends and the British governement are involved in.

But, we can't invalidate or diminish the Smith sighting for one HUGE reason and this is the KEY to the case. The McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting themselves. Unlike every parent I have ever dealt with whose child went missing or was found murdered, the McCanns were not interested in the biggest lead in their child going missing. Why is this? There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street. For if Gerry DID have a solid alibi at that time, the McCanns would have jumped at a sighting that was validated by an entire bunch of strangers, not just a close friend who could easily not be believed (and wasn't). The McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting is the bombshell in the Madeleine McCann case, not some photo that has a half dozen reasons for possibily not being the last one taken of Maddie.

Even if I could explain away every other behavior of the McCanns and every other piece of evidence in this case, the one thing I cannot possibly come up with is an alternative explanation for is the McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting. If they are innocent of any connection to Maddie going missing, they would have jumped on the Smith sighting as a huge lead as to who might have taken their daughter. And if they are guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, their ignoring of the Smith sighting is the strongest piece of evidence we have of Maddie's death and subsequent cover-up being an inside job and not a stranger abduction.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown -  April 10, 2017

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/why-smith-sighting-and-not-last-photo.html




.

I thought Pat Brown was another one (Textusa and blacksmithbureau spring to mind) that claimed to withdraw from commentating on the Madeleine McCann case.  All still churning out the same old groundless mantra.

I still struggle to understand why the McCanns legal representatives went to the trouble of ensuring withdrawal of her kindle book from sale on Amazon co.uk., it doesn't make sense to me when you consider Steve Marsden's book was up for grabs + a few other 'critical' books.  Or even the Summers and Swann novelette - now that could be considered as perverting the course of justice!

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

I actually don't care what Pat Brown thinks.

It's odd that she says the McCanns have dismissed the sighting when it's on their website along with an audio of Martin Smith.

Ms Brown's comparison of the 'last photo' with a photo of herself with her granddaughter (yes, it's a very nice photo) is downright bizarre. Gerry has to have an extremely important reason to convince everyone that the picture was taken on the 3rd of May, when it clearly wasn't. If this doesn't merit a huge red waving flag, I don't know what does.

I totally agree with Pat Brown that the Smith sighting is key to this case, and that it was Gerry McCann the Smiths encountered on that ill fated night.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:It's odd that she says the McCanns have dismissed the sighting when it's on their website along with an audio of Martin Smith.

Hi,GGG,The main thrux of this case seems to be based around"Smithman/Tannerman"are they the same person,Operation stGrange?
In one of Textusa theories,a substitute child is used for the"Smithman sighting" 21.25 PM 3 May 2007?
Operation Grange,moving the Clock forward for a fifty five minute New time scale,Tannerman/Creche Dad 22.00 hrs 3 May 2007?
Now"Note"who are unaccounted for in this time frame,from the Tapas families at the time of the"Abduction" from the Witness Statements from the evening of 3 May 2007 and perhaps the Dave Edgar Mockumentary, was a moment where,JT realises or reflects on what has happened in Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
Perhaps the "Abduction"Theory had been enacted after all?

pennylane wrote:GI totally agree with Pat Brown that the Smith sighting is key to this case, and that it was Gerry McCann the Smiths encountered on that ill fated night.

But why? Why would Gerry McCann be running around PDL with Madeleine, presumably dead ?

Mixed views on Pats article.

The 'last photo' being exposed as a fraud is a massive red flag and the reason for falsifying the date is hugely significant.

However, I believe that Smithman is important and the sighting on balance is genuine. MBM was already likely disposed of, and Smithman (GM) was carrying a decoy child, perhaps a sedated Amelie.

Cmaryholmes wrote:Ms Brown's comparison of the 'last photo' with a photo of herself with her granddaughter (yes, it's a very nice photo) is downright bizarre.

Fully agreed .

To build any argument about what really happened to Madeleine McCann on all sorts of weird and wonderful speculation about a photograph featuring herself and a baby was, frankly, beyond ridiculous.

Surely if Pat wants to convince us of her theory, she needs to deal carefully with te facts, the evidence, preciseley as Richard Hall has done in his five Madeleine McCann films so far.

In particular, she will simply have to drop her insistence that the McCanns rejected the Smithman sighting - because the facts are 100% against her on that point.  

I think Grande Finale above was close to the McCanns' thinking on th Smitman sighting.

We don't fully understand why the Smiths decided to describe a man who looked exactly like Wojchiech Krokowski, exactly like Jane Tanner's Tannerman, exactly like Nuno Lourenco's 'Sagresman'.  But it is surely reasonable to suggest it was connected with his 'meetings' with Robert Murat, especially as he as so insistent that the amn he saw for a few seconds was definitely not him.  

And why Martin Smith would claim that he was '60% to 80% sure' that the man he had sen was Gerry McCann, based on the extremely flimsy basis that 'Well, he was carrying Sean on his left shoulder just liked the man I saw', remains another mystery.

That mystery is then compounded by the facts I have set out above and in the 'SMITHMAN 8' thread that prove that Martin Smith has been actively assisting the McCanns (and latterly Operation Grange) for the past 9 years and 4 months.

Cmaryholmes wrote:

pennylane wrote:I totally agree with Pat Brown that the Smith sighting is key to this case, and that it was Gerry McCann the Smiths encountered on that ill fated night.

But why? Why would Gerry McCann be running around PDL with Madeleine, presumably dead ?

Hi Mary, the answer is simple:  Because they didn't have a car!  If they had, I suspect everything would be entirely different, but they found her after the alarm was raised at 9:20 imo and had to move her fast or risk arrest and twins taken.

(imo)

For what it's worth, I am still of the opinion that Jeremy Wilkins scuppered the plan. Hence, the hurried timelines on a makeshift cover. IF a dead Madeleine was in the apartment at the time GM "bumped into" JW,  and Madeleine was to "disappear" that night, I can understand the confusion this would cause. In fact, if there was a dead child involved, I imagine there was utter panic and confusion, as we have witnessed with the statements in the PJ files, and to say nothing about the so-called "15 minute" checks. These checks remind me of a slapstick theatre play, where the actors keep entering and leaving through different doors.
So, to recap, I believe that JW threw a spanner in the works of an otherwise "perfect plan". As for M Smith seeing someone with a child in his arms, I remain open-minded.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:It's odd that she says the McCanns have dismissed the sighting when it's on their website along with an audio of Martin Smith.

Maybe JW did scupper the the plan for a few moments,this would then account for JW not having seen(JT)on the same pathway?

pennylane wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:

pennylane wrote:I totally agree with Pat Brown that the Smith sighting is key to this case, and that it was Gerry McCann the Smiths encountered on that ill fated night.

But why? Why would Gerry McCann be running around PDL with Madeleine, presumably dead ?

Hi Mary, the answer is simple:  Because they didn't have a car!  If they had, I suspect everything would be entirely different, but they found her after the alarm was raised at 9:20 imo and had to move her fast or risk arrest and twins taken.

(imo)

They didn't have a car, but they did have a blue tennis bag.

Former mod here, 'candyfloss', has published Pat Brown's article and added this comment, referring to our thread here:

"So a post from over there [CMOMM] by admin says the Smith sighting is on their [the McCanns'] website.  But the question would have to be when did it appear, and the answer I think IIRC was only when Op Grange took over".

Allow me to correct her.

The Find Madeleine website was uploaded in the first week of May 2009 with a 30-second tape recording of a man with an Irish accent summarising Martin Smith's evidence. It is still there today, where we can hear him saying: "The man didn't look like a tourist, I don' know why" and "the man was about 34 to 35" etc.

The images of the two e-fits were uploaded to the Find Madeleine NOT of course when Operation Grange took over (May 2011) but on the day after the Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013.

Let it be said once again that the uploading of the Smithman sighting onto the Find Madeleine website in May 2009 coincided with the Channel 4/Mentorn Media documentary widely known as the 'Mockumentary'.

In this documentary there were two lengthy passages where the film narrator and the McCanns were at pains to explain that Smithman was probably Tannerman.

Anyone still doubting that the McCanns have actively made use of the Smithman sighting since 2008 should really go and watch that Mockumentary.

Finally, the other place 'over there' has a group of former malcontents from here openly stating today that CMOMM's views on the Last Photo prove that CMOMM is a 'McCann-supporting website' that amounts to 'government-controlled opposition'.

They can't get much dafter than that.

Can they?

Many of Pat's points make no sense to me. 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, on the bed she had been lifted from, in fact, anywhere? This suggests time for cleaning and changing sheets which does not fit with her claims. Secondly, the notion that they could not cut out and enlarge her image alone (seeing as they were having a bad photo day) from a photo is nonsense. In any case, they could have used the recent, good quality playground photos. These show Madeleine just as clearly as the last photo so there was no need for its use other than to "prove" she was alive on Thurs. p.m. The McCanns had Tannerman well established 3 weeks before the Smiths ever came forward. They aren't stupid. Tannerman was carrying a child away from the direction of the sea at 9.15. Would the public believe he was still walking about in plain view with her 45 minutes later in the opposite direction? I think not, hence the initial lack of emphasis on Smithman. If you've got a good story going you don't divert attention from it or weaken it with contradictions if you have any cop on.

This one gets me everytime.

For the best part of 10 years I believed everything happened on the 3rd.
And then we my recent interest was reignited I found out that many people now believe this not to be the case. 

I get that the clean up and staging would have been difficult on the 3rd, and the theory makes sense that it had to have happened prior to this date BUT the night of the 3rd of May was an absolute shambles in terms of 'planning'. 

Had this been pre planned then I think it would have been a much more convincing story, i.e which door they used, the jemmied shutters would never have been mentioned, the timeline was all over the place etc 

If you were going to plan something like this, everything would have been established. If the fateful night was 29th April they had 4 days to get their story straight. 

So I will say I am unsure, I go back on forth on this, but I sway more towards the 3rd May if I am being honest.

princess_leia wrote:This one gets me everytime.

For the best part of 10 years I believed everything happened on the 3rd.
And then we my recent interest was reignited I found out that many people now believe this not to be the case. 

I get that the clean up and staging would have been difficult on the 3rd, and the theory makes sense that it had to have happened prior to this date BUT the night of the 3rd of May was an absolute shambles in terms of 'planning'. 

Had this been pre planned then I think it would have been a much more convincing story, i.e which door they used, the jemmied shutters would never have been mentioned, the timeline was all over the place etc 

If you were going to plan something like this, everything would have been established. If the fateful night was 29th April they had 4 days to get their story straight. 

So I will say I am unsure, I go back on forth on this, but I sway more towards the 3rd May if I am being honest.

Excellent post, and I totally agree!

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 was never officially assigned to assist with the investigation into Madeleine McCanns disappearance, either by the PJ or the Metropolitan Police.

She is an American citizen with a claim to criminal profiling.  Apart from visiting Praia da Luz and having her photograph taken with Goncalo Amaral, her profiling technique in this particular case is confined to reading the PJ files etc. - same as anybody else that hasn't been directly involved with the case.  Her ponderings are but opinion based on Goncalo Amaral's comparatively limited time on the case - scuppered by outside interference, white noise you might say.

Apart from that, she dips in and out of the case from time to time, keeping her own profile up-front.  If you're going to be a profiler, who better to start with than yourself!

I can't agree with PB. I'm clear in my own mind that MBMs demise was on Sunday/Monday. The few days they had to concoct an abduction theory and for all the actors to know their lines was insufficient and hence the disjointed statements, initially, before they had time to consult and pathetically attempt to further "join up some dots".
To me, all theses sightings are either obfuscation or genuine unrelated sightings of others.....I believe Madeleine's body was out of there in the blue bag sometime on Thursday prior to them meeting in the Tapas bar, possibly with DP and/or MO arranging for said bag to be collected by AN Other and taken for refrigeration.

AN Other?
I wonder who that might be?

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