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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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 Guest 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?

by **Jill Havern** 13.04.17 13:50

No matter how I try I cannot get my head around Gerry being Smithman.

If Maddie did die behind the sofa on the Thursday and she was found when they came back from dinner, allowing time for the cadaver scent to develop, when was she put in the blue bag that Eddie alerted to in the wardrobe and flowerbed etc?

Are we really supposed to think that Gerry carried a dead Maddie towards the beach then had to go and collect his further decomposing daughter at a later time/date? That risks being spotted twice as 'Smithman'. The second time would carry even more risk than the first time as Police/residents would still be looking and be more alert.

Or maybe he took the blue bag to go and collect her then put her in the wardrobe?

Why not just put her in the blue bag and take her to the beach, or wherever it was he was going? And bring her back in the blue bag? And then have Kate raise the alarm once he got back?

How could he even go and collect a decomposing Maddie when the Police and residents were out looking? How could he then put a decomposing Maddie in the wardrobe when the Police were still in and out of the apartment taking photos and DNA swabs etc? How long would Maddie have to be hidden on the beach, or wherever it was, before Gerry could safely collect her?

If he wanted to be spotted as the abductor then he also ran the risk of being identified as Gerry, not just by the Smiths, but by potentially many other people too - pointless exercise as they would just tell the Police that they saw Gerry walking around PdL with his daughter, so no abduction then.

I have to say I can't get my head around any Smithman theory whereby it could really be Gerry carrying a decomposing Maddie or even an alive substitute sleeping/drugged child.

And if it was a substitute child he was carrying where did he put her because presumably he had to get back to the apartment to play the panic-stricken dad of an abducted daughter?

Sorry for the confusing post, but that's because I'm confused about it all!

I'm not saying the Smiths didn't see someone, like CrecheDad, but for me it couldn't have been Gerry with a dead Maddie or an alive substitute child.

by polyenne 13.04.17 13:52

Roidininki 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
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?

If one subscribes to that theory (I don't) one could agree but surely you can understand why it couldn't be Gerry.....the father can't be seen to be abducting his own daughter on the basis that he might be identified later

by willowthewisp 13.04.17 15:19

Hi GGG,the"Smith Family"made statements of having seen a person of a certain Height,age and clothing being worn by that person on 3 May 2007?
The"original time frame" 21.15-21.25pm, JT,JW,GMc,statements at the side of apartment 5a,Dave Edgars mockumentary,Tannerman?
You do not doubt that the"Smith Family"had seen a person like Creche Dad/Smithman but rule out GMc
as to carrying a substitute child or Madeleine?
I maybe wrong on this point,but didn't the Portugal PJ delay confirmation of the"Smith family"identifying a person with a child for several weeks after their statements?
Mr Smith has ruled out to the Portugal PJ of the Smithman sighting being(RM) Former Arquido?
Crime Watch October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood,the"Moving time moment of 55 minutes"Creche Dad has been accounted for to 22.00pm on the above date,(Smithman/Creche Dad) to Gerry's last check on his own Daughter,Madeleine in her bed apartment 5a 21.05pm alive and well.
Have the Portugal PJ spoken to DCI Andy Redwoods Creche Dad/Smithman in this"Joint Review Process"to rule that person in or out of any future suspects to Madeleine's missing person case?
Are Operation stGrange still looking for Smithman?

by Guest 13.04.17 15:29

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 3 CCTV-footage-of-Wojciech-Krokowski

Krokowski

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 3 This-one

Tannerman Smithman

by JRP 13.04.17 15:31

Roidininki 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
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?

Yeah I get it.
Why did she have to be seen in the arms of a male though?
I've never really tried body snatching, but thinking about it right now, I'd use a car, or like Get'em said, she'd use a bag.
I don't believe it anyway, it doesn't ring true to me at all.

by polyenne 13.04.17 15:36

Add in KMs cry of "they've taken her" as opposed to "she's been taken" or "she's gone" and you could be forgiven for thinking that there might have been more than one abductor

by willowthewisp 13.04.17 15:39

JRP wrote:
Roidininki 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
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?

Yeah I get it.
Why did she have to be seen in the arms of a male though?
I've never really tried body snatching, but thinking about it right now, I'd use a car, or like Get'em said, she'd use a bag.
I don't believe it anyway, it doesn't ring true to me at all.

Hi JRP,A male person was identified by JT and the Smith Family as to have been in close proximity to the Apartment 5a,Ocean Club,seen carrying a young Girl between 21.15-22.00pm 3 May 2007.

by **Jill Havern** 13.04.17 15:39

Hi willowthewisp, can you please outline a scenario for me where Gerry could be carrying a dead decomposing Maddie or a substitute child on the evening of May 3rd away from the apartment.

And please tell me how he could have got Maddie back to the apartment, so that the dogs could alert at the wardrobe and flowerbed.

And if he was carrying a substitute, as a pretendy abductor, then what could he have done with this child?

I genuinely want to understand Smithman.

by willowthewisp 13.04.17 16:11

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Hi willowthewisp, can you please outline a scenario for me where Gerry could be carrying a dead decomposing Maddie or a substitute child on the evening of May 3rd away from the apartment.

And please tell me how he could have got Maddie back to the apartment, so that the dogs could alert at the wardrobe and flowerbed.

And if he was carrying a substitute, as a pretendy abductor, then what could he have done with this child?

I genuinely want to understand Smithman.

Hi GGG, first of all I do not think I have ever stated that Madeleine McCann is Dead,but I stand to be corrected if I have stated to Madeleine's well being being the opposite!
I have been trying to follow the Forum rules of known facts which can be proven.
I do not doubt the Evidence from Martin Grimes dogs Eddie,Keela and to what they have alerted to in apartment 5a or the families other address.
In regard to a scenario of Gerry and your chosen words.
I would at the present moment wait for any Criminal Evidence to be produced to a Court of Law to decide upon a person's being found Guilty or Not Guilty to any Criminal Activity with regard to a missing child,Madeleine McCann.
In fact I await for any"Prosecutions" for any Criminal activity in relation to the Madeleine McCann case?
The UK Government would have to construct several new structures to house the Guilty parties,which they know too well with regard to Madeleine McCann and if you care to look at the unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan you will have some idea of what an Establishment can Cover Up,Hillsborough!!?
PS,in light of how the UK MSM treated Mrs Brenda Leyland in regard to Madeleine McCann's disappearance,Sky News Corporation,Martin Brunt,just what where you doing in Portugal in relation to any missing person programme,remember your 100% DNA Sky News,eh Martin and your secret telephone conversations to (RM)Contract?

by **Jill Havern** 13.04.17 16:15

OK, fair enough...maybe someone else can describe a scenario then, as asked in my previous post, where Gerry was Smithman on the basis that Maddie did die on Thursday and he was seen walking towards the beach.

by willowthewisp 13.04.17 16:50

Get'emGonçalo wrote:OK, fair enough...maybe someone else can describe a scenario then, as asked in my previous post, where Gerry was Smithman on the basis that Maddie did die on Thursday and he was seen walking towards the beach.

Hi GGG,The Metropolitan Police Service,Operation stGrange,will not confirm or Deny Martin Grimes, Crime dogs alerts from Eddie,Keela,but what a good idea to have filmed what they had alerted too.
In fact,Police Officers from the"Homocide Unit"are involved with Operation Grange and Sir Bernard hogan Howe(Faux Pah) quickly corrected himself on his LBC Broadcast with regard to Madeleine McCann?
The UK public would have been much less informed but for the"Release"of the Portugal PJ files,now that was something Team McCann had not considered?
This is the only reason of where we are today in regard to missing Madeleine McCann,with out the release and transfer to English of the PJ files?

by **Jill Havern** 13.04.17 17:06

I still want to see a scenario from someone, anyone, whereby:

1. Maddie died behind the sofa on Thursday 3rd May

2. Gerry was seen by the Smiths walking towards the beach

3. The dogs alerted to the wardrobe where the blue bag was photographed

4. The dogs alerted to the hire car.

If Gerry was Smithman:

1. How did he get Maddie back from wherever he was going so that she could then be stored in a freezer and transported 3 weeks later in the hire car.

2. If Gerry was seen by the Smiths with a substitute then what could have happened to that child and how did she get back to her rightful parents

...while PdL was buzzing with Police and residents searching?

If Gerry took either a decomposing corpse or a substitute child towards the beach that night, then something must have happened after that.

How does Smithman fit into what we are led to believe by Amaral and the PJ that Maddie died in the apartment and her corpse was concealed?

by willowthewisp 13.04.17 17:28

Hi GGG,I don't Know if you have read the Textusa article,Dave Edgar,but that article alludes to certain persons that may fit into a scenario as part of an Abduction,thesis?
If the Tapas Statements timelines are true,they depict a possibility as to what may have happened,but,the "Truth" will only come out in a Court of Law,as to what can be proven beyond a Reasonable doubt?
PS, I am not stating Textusa is Right or Wrong it is a thesis?

by **Jill Havern** 13.04.17 17:36

No, I haven't read it.

But there are members here who believe Maddie died during the evening of Thursday 3rd May and that the person who the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann.

So please give me a brief scenario of where he could be going, how long Maddie would have to be hidden, how he got Maddie back so the dogs could alert at the wardrobe and flowerbed, or how he got the substitute back as in my previous posts while the place was buzzing with Police.

Tell me. I want to believe Gerry was Smithman.

But I don't want to go and wade through a Textusa article.

by Columbo 13.04.17 17:50

Get'emGonçalo wrote:No matter how I try I cannot get my head around Gerry being Smithman.

I have to say I can't get my head around any Smithman theory whereby it could really be Gerry carrying a decomposing Maddie or even an alive substitute sleeping/drugged child.

And if it was a substitute child he was carrying where did he put her because presumably he had to get back to the apartment to play the panic-stricken dad of an abducted daughter?

Sorry for the confusing post, but that's because I'm confused about it all!

I'm not saying the Smiths didn't see someone, like CrecheDad, but for me it couldn't have been Gerry with a dead Maddie or an alive substitute child.

I agree Get'em, it is all most confusing.

I'm of the view that no-one was carrying any child in their arms around PdL around 9pm that night. I did wonder if some perfectly innocent person had in fact been carrying their sleeping child and the co-incidence of this and the disappearance, along with JT's story - and I think it is just that, a story - had thrown confusion and maybe a red herring into the mix.

But, any innocent person carrying a child could have been identified and eliminated very early on. No 'abductor' would walk casually through the streets with a kidnapped child - not even the stupidest of criminals.

Smithman/Tannerman/Crecheman have sown confusion - as I think they were meant to - and if I were trying to solve the case I'd go as far as to say I'd ignore them.

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