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 **Jill Havern** 11.04.17 13:34

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 2 710

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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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.

by Phoebe 12.04.17 0:55

Verdi wrote:
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.

I stand corrected on where the pillowcase D.N.A. sample was secured for testing. Comparison with other physical evidence eg hairs that were recovered in 5A (none matching Madeleine. Please correct me if I wrongly state that 5A yielded no match to that pillowcase.

by Cheshire Cat 12.04.17 8:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

.

Thank you for such a comprehensive reply Tony.

I am totally open minded about the whole case and I do think that Richard Hall's work is convincing and with enough evidence and logic to warrant serious consideration by the PJ and indeed Goncalo Amaral. I shall revisit the threads on the Smith sighting. I guess I find it quite incredible that the Smith family as a whole should fabricate the sighting.

I certainly think that it is possible Madeleine met her demise earlier in the week - and I agree that the 'dressing up box' picture of Madeleine was likely taken on 29 April.

by sallypelt 12.04.17 10:48

I am not sure where to put this or whether it should have a thread of its own. So much water has gone under the bridge, during the past 9 years, and so much information AND myths have passed under it, that one begins to doubt whether one has actually heard it, in the distant past, or dreamt it. However, I was 99% sure that in the early days of this sorry saga, I had read, on more than one occasion, that Jeremy Wilkins had seen Jerry doing something by the shutters on the night of May 3^rd.

I am going to copy and paste extracts of information take from, what I believe to be, the 3A forum. I will give the link to the full text, for those who would like to read it all:

Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry seen by the shutter

by Arbiter » Sat May 03, 2008 8:25 am
I have seen in another thread that Jeremy Wilkins said he saw Gerry by the shutter.

Can anyone tell us more about this or point to the original story?

Thanks.

Re: Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry seen by the shutter

by Primavera » Sat May 03, 2008 9:11 am
I wonder if IRONSIDE knows something about where to find this. I came across this comment on JUSTICE FOR MADDIE as I was searching for a vaguely remembered quote somewhere about Gerry's having been seen by the shutters.

"Ironside (you are brill too!!) pointed out Gerry's fingerprints found on the OUTSIDE of the shutters - sorry Gerry no "Mr Predators" What a bunch of bungling prats! Fancy going and drinking more wine given the "work" they needed to do, but clearly any break from their normal routine of being a bunch of pissheads would also have caused comment and suspicion."

Re: Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry seen by the shutter

by HAPPYDOG » Sat May 03, 2008 9:59 am
I remember this from the really really really early days but thought it was a forum myth???

I don't know something about someone had seen him near the window and then it went on to him messing about with the shutters.

If Jeremy Wilkins had seen this I don't think this would have been made public though. It wasn't mentioned in the article his wife did either.

Re: Jeremy Wilkins and Gerry seen by the shutter

by Dawn64 » Sat May 03, 2008 10:38 am
Its not a forum myth-it was an article in the Daily Mail back in june/july hen Jez Wilkins was first identified-the article header was that this witness could clear the McCanns of involvement but in the article Jez was quoted as saying he bumped into Gerry as Gerry was checking the shutters, they then chatted for a while before Gerry left to go to the Tapas, the time was around 9pm-for me it was the moment I began to truly doubt the McCanns. I have searched for the article since then but its another whoosh clucked one.

http://3as.madeleinemccann.org/viewtopic.php?p=310162&sid=c006c6b7d535ef053c097b075966b92a

by willowthewisp 12.04.17 18:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
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?

Hi Mr Tony Bennett,in reply to your response,Roidininki!
Your informed opinion is that something had happened to Madeleine McCann on Sunday 29/30 Monday April 2007?
Your reply is dismissive of(Roidinink,Theory)But can you Rule out this Theory of a substitute Child,IF, it is possible to have happened as part of an Abduction plan!!?

by **Jill Havern** 12.04.17 18:55

willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
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?
Hi Mr Tony Bennett,in reply to your response,Roidininki!
Your informed opinion is that something had happened to Madeleine McCann on Sunday 29/30 Monday April 2007?
Your reply is dismissive of(Roidinink,Theory)But can you Rule out this Theory of a substitute Child,IF, it is possible to have happened as part of an Abduction plan!!?

But what if someone didn't spot him "not at all clearly" but, instead spotted him 'clearly'?
Where would that leave Gerry then?

by willowthewisp 12.04.17 19:04

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
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?
Hi Mr Tony Bennett,in reply to your response,Roidininki!
Your informed opinion is that something had happened to Madeleine McCann on Sunday 29/30 Monday April 2007?
Your reply is dismissive of(Roidinink,Theory)But can you Rule out this Theory of a substitute Child,IF, it is possible to have happened as part of an Abduction plan!!?
But what if someone didn't spot him "not at all clearly" but, instead spotted him 'clearly'?
Where would that leave Gerry then?

HI GGG,Well Martin ruled out one third of the Arquido's didn't he?
Who did you see and who did you not see on 3 May 2007?
Or,are the time zone back to a "Very Special meeting in November,with special Lawyers," eh Mr Kennedy,job offers my ar**?

by Roidininki 12.04.17 19:34

Thanks to a couple of posters who havn't dismissed my posts . Not able to expand on what I said apart from distraction seems to play a big part in what happened that night of May 3rd .

by Phoebe 12.04.17 20:41

Roidininki wrote:Thanks to a couple of posters who havn't dismissed my posts . Not able to expand on what I said apart from distraction seems to play a big part in what happened that night of May 3.rd

Wouldn't Gerry, if it were a planned decoy run with a substitute Madeleine, have at the very least borrowed a pair of specs - say from Payne. I cannot believe he would have undertaken such a risk. What if he had run into staff or other guests, totally undisguised, who would have recognized him at once.

by polyenne 12.04.17 20:54

Oh my ! The abduction theory may be unravelling over time (in no small part due to the sleuths on this forum) but Gerry is no mug and would not have risked the beloved theory by being spotted carrying a child (any child) around the streets on that evening. It would have blown the whole cover story !
Please desist with this nonsense !

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.17 21:10

Pat Brown's article of 10 April is on her blog and there have been many comments on the blog since, many of them supporting her of course.

One of those commenting referred to my criticisms of her. This was her response. I will make some brief observations below on the first of her three paragraphs:

Pat's response:

"Tony recently sent me a lovely email congratulating me on the recent Australian and UK press. Occasionally, we send emails to each other and both of us look back fondly at our meeting in London. All I can say is, sometimes when people have become heavily invested in a particular belief, they tend to get upset when that belief is threatened. Also, it may be that once one has stood behind a belief for so long and one gets inklings that maybe that maybe the thing one has believed in so strongly might not actually be true, then one fights to maintain that belief. Kind of a normal human thing.

"Also, this may be an issue for some, but, for myself, I don't take it personally if someone has a different theory than me or disagrees with my take on something. Even though this is my field, I recognize a) I could be wrong and b) people with less expertise do not understand things the same way. So, I try to remain friendly and civil if they are willing to do the same. I think Tony Bennett is a straight arrow and has no ulterior motive than to get at the truth. I think Richard Hall is a good filmmaker who has done some really good work (I like his first bit on the McCann case) but I feel his tendency is to find dots that are not meaningful and connect them to create a scenario that is not probable (which is how many conspiracy theories develop).

"I also think the weird politics of this case encourage anyone to think there has to be more here than two neglectful parents coverup their mistake. And I get that because I cannot explain the politics. However, I also can't find evidence to support a bigger set of players to the point of a government involved pedophile group and an earlier death.

My response:

Yes, I did send Pat an unsolicited email a few weeks back, and, well OK, yes, it was 'lovely', really.

She had secured some good publicity this year for the McCann-sceptic point of view, in Australia and the United States, maybe in other places as well. She has been able to do this primarily because she is a recognised Criminal Profiler, with a track record of having commented frequently on national TV.

I credited her, and always have done, for her courage in clearly articulating her view of the case very early on, when virtually no other person in a public positoon would do so. I believe that her outspoken courage may have adversely affected her career and her income. Well, I can certainly relate to that. So I congratulated her on having secured a wide audience for the alternative view of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

My other observation is this. I think in the following words, Pat Brown has actually spoken against herself:

"All I can say is, sometimes when people have become heavily invested in a particular belief, they tend to get upset when that belief is threatened. Also, it may be that once one has stood behind a belief for so long and one gets inklings that maybe that maybe the thing one has believed in so strongly might not actually be true, then one fights to maintain that belief. Kind of a normal human thing".

It is Pat Brown, however, who has been stuck in her twin beliefs that (a) Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May and (b) that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann.

By contrast, and especially following the extraordinary Crimewatch McCann Show in 2013 (with its two dodgy e-fits and its dishonest attempt to replace Tannerman with Crecheman), some of us, like PeterMac, Lizzy HideHo, all the Admin Team here, Richard Hall, many members here, and many McCann-bloggers elsewhere have all had look at a number of key issues afresh.

And as a result we have significantly modified our views on the timeline of the key events of that week.

In a couple of emails over the past few years, I have politely asked Pat to review the evidence e.g. that presented in Richard Hall's films.

It is a matter for regret that we remain so divided over the timeline of events that week. Pat is a courageous lady for whom I have enduring great respect.

.