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 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.

.

by Verdi 12.04.17 21:18

Just a trifling little question that's has been asked before, yes - by me, why the need to fake an abductor wandering the streets with a substitute child, or the child or even a rag doll, to be not seen or half seen or whole seen? Did the planners know that the Smith family would be leaving the local boozer at exactly the same time as the fake abductor was strolling about?

Besides, Jane Tanner had already provided the perfect phantom abductor. At least until ex-DCI Redwood morphed poor old Tanner's multi-faceted invention into a Smithman of sorts (vaguely resembling Gerald McCann of course), over six years later.

Meanwhile in lalaland..

The Forensic Science Service (rest in peace ) reported in September 2007, with reference to UK cadavar dogs [sic]

Re: The abduction of Madeleine McCann

by JRP 13.04.17 10:20

Perhaps Pat Brown suffers from the Mark Twain syndrome, "it's easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled".

It must be difficult as a professional person to come to a considered conclusion, only to be challenged by a "ah but what if"?

All the Smithman sighting does is add to the overall intrigue, who was he, where was he going, who was he carrying, what was he wearing, was it Gerry McCann, was it the Podesta brothers, was it Wojciech Krokowski.

Among those who think the Smith sighting is important are the McCanns, and that should start alarm bells ringing straight away. They want us to believe the shape shifting Tannerman, is the multi headed Smithman, even though, Scotland Yard ruled out Tannerman, by ~~fabricating~~ finding Crecheman.

My opinion is this, nobody walked around the streets that night carrying a child, no Tannermen, no Crecheman and no Smithman.
Tanner and Smith both described Krokowski, Tanners sighting then became Murat, Smiths sighting (tit for tat) became Gerry McCann, but later grew another head and morphed into the Podesta Brothers.
It's ridiculous isn't it?

spin

by Liz Eagles 13.04.17 10:37

JRP wrote:Perhaps Pat Brown suffers from the Mark Twain syndrome, "it's easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled".

It must be difficult as a professional person to come to a considered conclusion, only to be challenged by a "ah but what if"?

All the Smithman sighting does is add to the overall intrigue, who was he, where was he going, who was he carrying, what was he wearing, was it Gerry McCann, was it the Podesta brothers, was it Wojciech Krokowski.

Among those who think the Smith sighting is important are the McCanns, and that should start alarm bells ringing straight away. They want us to believe the shape shifting Tannerman, is the multi headed Smithman, even though, Scotland Yard ruled out Tannerman, by ~~fabricating~~ finding Crecheman.

My opinion is this, nobody walked around the streets that night carrying a child, no Tannermen, no Crecheman and no Smithman.
Tanner and Smith both described Krokowski, Tanners sighting then became Murat, Smiths sighting (tit for tat) became Gerry McCann, but later grew another head and morphed into the Podesta Brothers.
It's ridiculous isn't it?

It most certainly is.

by Roidininki 13.04.17 10:48

Phoebe wrote:
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.

Perhaps you're setting too much store on Gerry being a standout character when in fact he was just "a man " on holiday amongst many men .
I can imagine he would be a character who could quite easily take risks in such a situation if one called for it ,from what I've seen of him .

by Liz Eagles 13.04.17 10:56

Pat Brown is very dismissive of the photographs, to the point she quotes a quite silly analogy of her own experience. There's nothing professional in drawing your own experience into analyzing a case. I can do that because I'm not an expert whose professional reputation relies upon getting things right.

To dismiss the last photo is beyond my comprehension. PeterMac showed how the weather conditions of the last photo could not have been taken on the day Madeleine disappeared - and believe me, I've poo poohed his claims only to realise that he is right.

To dismiss the last photo (the tangible evidence) and to ignore the date stamp is foolish. This photograph, which wasn't released immediately, is the key to the time frame.

I'm surprised by Pat Brown that she gives so little credence to this element.

by Roidininki 13.04.17 10:59

Verdi wrote:Just a trifling little question that's has been asked before, yes - by me, why the need to fake an abductor wandering the streets with a substitute child, or the child or even a rag doll, to be not seen or half seen or whole seen? Did the planners know that the Smith family would be leaving the local boozer at exactly the same time as the fake abductor was strolling about?

Besides, Jane Tanner had already provided the perfect phantom abductor. At least until ex-DCI Redwood morphed poor old Tanner's multi-faceted invention into a Smithman of sorts (vaguely resembling Gerald McCann of course), over six years later.

Meanwhile in lalaland..

The Forensic Science Service (rest in peace ) reported in September 2007, with reference to UK cadavar dogs [sic]

Re: The abduction of Madeleine McCann

How about ,in answer to your question ,it was to prove that Madeleine was alive on the 3rd . In reality it was simply a sleeping child belonging to another Tapas group parent being carried in such a way that it was impossible to fully identify the carrier.
Yes I think it possible that it was worth a risk that someone ,not neccesarily The Smiths would be around.
You don't have to believe what I'm suggesting and I know you won't.

by JRP 13.04.17 12:11

I don't understand the logic.
A child is reported missing by the parents and to prove she's still alive, the father borrows another child from somebody and carries her around the streets.
But then doesn't that prove she wasn't missing at all, as she was with her father?

Just askin'

by Verdi 13.04.17 12:18

'

Roidininki wrote:
Verdi wrote:Just a trifling little question that's has been asked before, yes - by me, why the need to fake an abductor wandering the streets with a substitute child, or the child or even a rag doll, to be not seen or half seen or whole seen? Did the planners know that the Smith family would be leaving the local boozer at exactly the same time as the fake abductor was strolling about?

Besides, Jane Tanner had already provided the perfect phantom abductor. At least until ex-DCI Redwood morphed poor old Tanner's multi-faceted invention into a Smithman of sorts (vaguely resembling Gerald McCann of course), over six years later.

Meanwhile in lalaland..

The Forensic Science Service (rest in peace ) reported in September 2007, with reference to UK cadavar dogs [sic]

Re: The abduction of Madeleine McCann

How about ,in answer to your question ,it was to prove that Madeleine was alive on the 3rd . In reality it was simply a sleeping child belonging to another Tapas group parent being carried in such a way that it was impossible to fully identify the carrier.
Yes I think it possible that it was worth a risk that someone ,not neccesarily The Smiths would be around.
You don't have to believe what I'm suggesting and I know you won't.

They already had that planned out with the 'last photograph' (poolside) showing Madeleine alive and well on the afternoon of Thursday 3rd May and later by David Payne's alleged visit to apartment 5a, somewhere between 5.00 pm and 7.00 pm - job jobbed!

You're dead right I'm not swayed by your argument - it has no substance. If, as you suggest, a substitute child was carried about the streets of Praia da Luz, seemingly in the hope they might be seen by a loitering stranger, if identity is purposely obscured then the child could not be identified as Madeleine - could it? Exercise therefore null and void!

Then you should consider Jane Tanner's sighting of a potential abductor at approximately 9.15 pm on the Thursday, in the vicinity of apartment 5a. Is it to be assumed that the abductor, fake or otherwise, was parading about the streets for in excess of three quarters of an hour? In the words of the man himself - ludicrous!

by Verdi 13.04.17 12:30

JRP wrote:I don't understand the logic.
A child is reported missing by the parents and to prove she's still alive, the father borrows another child from somebody and carries her around the streets.
But then doesn't that prove she wasn't missing at all, as she was with her father?

Just askin'

That's because you are not empirical - as a member said of me some while ago. That's of course illogical smilie

.

by polyenne 13.04.17 12:45

Jez Wilkins, not being part of the "Pact of Silence", screwed it for them slightly by stupidly being in the road alongside 5A sometime just after 9pm. Not only did he spot GM tampering with the shutters ("just checking them, officer") but also throwing JTs movements into doubt too. Then, to cap it all, the wife can't even get her curtain call nailed either !!
What a palaver !!

by polyenne 13.04.17 12:46

It's farcical...if only there wasn't such an awful outcome for poor Madeleine, God rest her soul

by JRP 13.04.17 12:47

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:I don't understand the logic.
A child is reported missing by the parents and to prove she's still alive, the father borrows another child from somebody and carries her around the streets.
But then doesn't that prove she wasn't missing at all, as she was with her father?

Just askin'
That's because you are not empirical - as a member said of me some while ago. That's of course illogical .

You're right! I had to Google it, but yep, I'm not empirical. I might read it again just in case

by Verdi 13.04.17 12:59

polyenne wrote:Jez Wilkins, not being part of the "Pact of Silence", screwed it for them slightly by stupidly being in the road alongside 5A sometime just after 9pm. Not only did he spot GM tampering with the shutters ("just checking them, officer") but also throwing JTs movements into doubt too. Then, to cap it all, the wife can't even get her curtain call nailed either !!
What a palaver !!

I'm not so sure about Wilkins and his whiff, all was not as it seemed. More on that later - time is of the essence.

by polyenne 13.04.17 13:10

Time for what, Verdi ?

by Roidininki 13.04.17 13:40

JRP wrote:I don't understand the logic.
A child is reported missing by the parents and to prove she's still alive, the father borrows another child from somebody and carries her around the streets.
But then doesn't that prove she wasn't missing at all, as she was with her father?

Just askin

You don't understand my logic?
Well she WASN'T missing on that night of the third ,rather her body had been taken , away that is , on a different date .
To support the abduction a pseudo Madeleine had to be seen in the arms of an adult male on the night of the 3rd .
Does that explain it better?

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