Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case

by **Jill Havern** 04.04.21 20:04

The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case

There are so many theories, conversations, and arguments over what actually happened to Maddie McCann...was it an abduction by a child predator, was it an accident covered up, or was it an even more nefarious crime involving a number of people there at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz during the spring of 2007? In this video, I break down the most important evidence to focus in on what is the most likely scenario of what happened to Madeleine McCann; the top five clues in the Madeleine McCann case that support the theory of the McCann involvement and I will also discuss the ZERO clues any police agency has that supports the abduction theory.

----------

This is actually live right now.

by Guest 05.04.21 0:21

Madeleine McCann Case- Pat Brown Interview

Jun 5, 2020

The Unspeakable

This interview was initially part of a short documentary I was going to make but it fell through in the end. However, Pat Brown gave such an amazing interview I felt I had to surface it somewhere, especially considering Scotland Yard have a new "breakthrough" suspect.

Pat Brown is a criminal profiler and this is a link to her blog: https://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

Black lives matter and have always mattered, donate here:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/repor...

by **PeterMac** 05.04.21 8:25

I have just listened to Pat Brown’s YouTube talk.
(Accepting that she still thinks the relevant date is 3/5/7, even though not necessarily as late as reported)

It explains, for me, why she places so much emphasis on Smithman
This is a précis of her argument. it is at 1hr:40 ff, and it is spelled out in more detail in the second YouTube given above at 16:00 onwards

Tannerman is important because it gives GM an alibi. They are seen in the same street at the same time by an independent witness.

When Smithman is reported, the McCanns dismiss the sighting. They do not insist that the PJ spend huge effort trying to find who it was.
And it is the fact of that Non-interest which is of importance.

In the book it is also largely glossed over, except that reference is made to Tannerman and Smithman being one and the same people.

And the reason for that is that GM has no cast-iron alibi for the Smithman sighting
And he must have an alibi.
The possibility that they are two fathers carrying two children some 400m and 45 minutes apart is irrelevant to that over-riding principle.

As we now know Tannerman was dismissed officially by Redwood, which merely confuses the situation ! (even further)

by Doug D 05.04.21 9:23

And malicious Pam still seemingly spouting vitriol!

by **Jill Havern** 05.04.21 9:50

I noticed that...I think Pat blocked her from the channel though.

by **crusader** 05.04.21 13:05

Snipped from @PeterMac.

It explains, for me, why she places so much emphasis on Smithman
This is a précis of her argument. it is at 1hr:40 ff, and it is spelled out in more detail in the second YouTube given above at 16:00 onwards

Tannerman is important because it gives GM an alibi. They are seen in the same street at the same time by an independent witness.

That is exactly what I thought.
The person who was carrying Madelene at 10 pm and was seen by the Smith family, panicked and that is when the Tannerman sighting was invented.

The Smith family have nothing to gain by telling lies. I would rather believe someone who didn't know the McCann's, than one of the tapas lot.

by Guest 05.04.21 13:47

So back to Madeleine McCann disappearing on the night of 3rd May 2007 !?!

So back to the Smithman (or mythman - a matter of personal preference) and Gerry McCann carrying a corpse around the streets of Praia da Luz at 22:00H.

Bang goes years of hard slog in quest of the truth!

Why does Gerry McCann need an alibi to cover his movements on the evening of 3rd May 2007? By all intents and purposes, the dirty work had been done and dusted (literally?) days beforehand, the only remaining work in hand was to give the phantom abductor the opportunity to abduct - the evening/night of 3rd May 2007.

Pat Brown, interesting as her analysis might be considered, is not an aficionado of the case and she looks through the eyes of a criminal profiler. Like statement analysis, no doubt criminal profiling has it's place in criminal investigations but it can only be another tool to assist the police.

Dogs on the other hand ....

by **sharonl** 05.04.21 14:29

On 14th May 2007, Robert Murat was made an arguido in the case. Jane Tanner suddenly identifies Murat as the man she claims to have seen carrying a child away.

The tapas group point the finger at Murat, claiming that he was outside the apartment.

The PJ suspect his motives as interpreter.

0n 26th May 2007, Martin Smith very conveniently decides to step in. Amongst other things, he says:

"In May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately".

It has been suggested that the reason for the Smith sighting was to take the heat of Robert Murat.

There is a lot of information here on the forum, many thanks particularly to Tony Bennet, that blows the Smithman sighting out of the water.

It would seem to me that this alleged sighting had a part to play. Is it possible that since the Tapas group pointed the finger at Murat, the claim that it may It may have been Gerry that the Smiths had seen, was pure revenge? Or was it a ploy to keep the focus on May 3rd? After all, Smith never returned to testify. And what happened when Brian Kennedy contacted Smith and met with Murat?

It was also said that haplotypes belonging to Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were found together, IIRC at his aunts villa.

There is something murky going on with the ex-pat community and villa owners in PDL. Are they all in this together?

by Guest 05.04.21 16:26

crusader wrote:The Smith family have nothing to gain by telling lies.

Do you know them?

by **Silentscope** 05.04.21 16:31

@crusader wrote: The Smith family have nothing to gain by telling lies. I would rather believe someone who didn't know the McCann's, than one of the tapas lot.

Absolutely, but the ‘Tannerman’ sighting was written down on the Children’s book pages BEFORE Jane made her verbal report later on. Why believe anything anyone says in this case anyway?

Someone thought it all up for her, EXACTLY WHEN those notes were written would narrow down the time of death considerably.

To note:

There were two glasses on the living room table.
Two timelines were written by two different Authors.
No one has independently confirmed the time at which they were actually written.
The book ‘The Interpretation of Murder’ appears to be on the Sofa in the living room according to 5A photographs.
Tannerman wore the same clothing as David Payne on the evening of the reported abduction according to the Social workers statement.

All seems to point to a hastily planned version of events, not cunningly conceived over days in advance.

Also not in response to being nearly caught on CCTV on the roadside Camera, or being seen by anyone on route to the Town centre if that is what really happened. The Smiths were not the only people around at that time. Anyone could have seen ‘Smithman’ if he is real.

Why were the Smiths the ONLY ones to notice him might be the right question?

by **Jill Havern** 05.04.21 16:53

Kate McCann has nothing to gain by telling lies
Gerry McCann has nothing to gain by telling lies
Jane Tanner has nothing to gain by telling lies
Rachel Oldfield has nothing to gain by telling lies
David Payne has nothing to gain by telling lies
Robert Murat Madeleine McCann is dead
Katarina Gaspar has nothing to gain by telling lies
Arul Gaspar has nothing to gain by telling lies
Cat Baker has nothing to gain by telling lies
Jon Clarke has nothing to gain by telling lies
Danielle Gusmaroli has nothing to gain by telling lies
Tracey Kandohla has nothing to gain by telling lies
Jim Gamble has nothing to gain by telling lies
Mark Williams-Thomas has nothing to gain by telling lies
Colin Sutton has nothing to gain by telling lies
Martin Brunt has nothing to gain by telling lies
Dave Edgar has nothing to gain by telling lies
Arthur Cowley has nothing to gain by telling lies
Brian Kennedy has nothing to gain by telling lies
Kevin Halligen has nothing to gain by telling lies
Nuno Lourenco has nothing to gain by telling lies
Francisco Marco has nothing to gain by telling lies
Marco Correia has nothing to gain by telling lies
Pamela Fenn has nothing to gain by telling lies
The Smith family have nothing to gain by telling lies
Mark Rowley has nothing to gain by telling lies
Operation Grange have nothing to gain by telling lies

$i don\'t know$

Eddie and Keela have nothing to gain by telling lies

Gonçalo Amaral is a "liar", "deserves to feel fear", have his family and finances ruined, and made homeless

RIP Maddie McCann

by **crusader** 05.04.21 17:06

@Paulo Alexandrewrote....Do you know them?

No I don't know them. Things would be a lot clearer if I did.

by **crusader** 05.04.21 18:01

The only person that matters is Madeleine. And searching for the the truth is the way to find out what happened to her, this forum is the way forward.
I have no affinity to any of the players in this sorry tale of a lost little girl.

by **Jill Havern** 05.04.21 18:22

The only thing any of them, except Amaral and the dogs, have achieved so far is an ungodly, hugely expensive wild goose chase.

Madeleine deserves justice and so do the twins.

And Dr Amaral deserves to get his life and reputation back.

by **crusader** 05.04.21 18:53

One thing I noticed when reading Aoife Smith's statement.

She said the girl had a light top with long sleeves, not sure if same as trousers, only that it was very light.

by **sharonl** 05.04.21 18:59

crusader wrote:One thing I noticed when reading Aoife Smith's statement.

She said the girl had a light top with long sleeves, not sure if same as trousers, only that it was very light.

Not Madeleine then

Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case M%2Bnews%2BLG

by **crusader** 05.04.21 19:08

@sharonl wrote,,,Not Madeleine then.

Makes you think doesn't it.

by **Jill Havern** 05.04.21 19:37

Can you copy and paste that part of her statement here please?

by **crusader** 05.04.21 19:44

She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers

by **crusader** 05.04.21 19:51

Earlier in her statement she explained where the girls arms were.
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck.

by worriedmum 06.04.21 1:12

sharonl wrote:
crusader wrote:One thing I noticed when reading Aoife Smith's statement.

She said the girl had a light top with long sleeves, not sure if same as trousers, only that it was very light.

Not Madeleine then

It depends whether you believe the parents I suppose

by Guest 06.04.21 1:21

Silentscope wrote:@crusader wrote: The Smith family have nothing to gain by telling lies. I would rather believe someone who didn't know the McCann's, than one of the tapas lot.

Absolutely, but the ‘Tannerman’ sighting was written down on the Children’s book pages BEFORE Jane made her verbal report later on. Why believe anything anyone says in this case anyway?

Someone thought it all up for her, EXACTLY WHEN those notes were written would narrow down the time of death considerably.

To note:

There were two glasses on the living room table.
Two timelines were written by two different Authors.
No one has independently confirmed the time at which they were actually written.
The book ‘The Interpretation of Murder’ appears to be on the Sofa in the living room according to 5A photographs.
Tannerman wore the same clothing as David Payne on the evening of the reported abduction according to the Social workers statement.

All seems to point to a hastily planned version of events, not cunningly conceived over days in advance.

Also not in response to being nearly caught on CCTV on the roadside Camera, or being seen by anyone on route to the Town centre if that is what really happened. The Smiths were not the only people around at that time. Anyone could have seen ‘Smithman’ if he is real.

Why were the Smiths the ONLY ones to notice him might be the right question?

You seriously need to tell your 'source', the person you are posting for, to get their facts right. Or at least check out the detail yourself before posting on his behalf - spreading false information is not helpful.

by **PeterMac** 06.04.21 7:15

Verdi wrote:So back to Madeleine McCann disappearing on the night of 3rd May 2007 !?!
***
Why does Gerry McCann need an alibi to cover his movements on the evening of 3rd May 2007? By all intents and purposes, the dirty work had been done and dusted (literally?) days beforehand, the only remaining work in hand was to give the phantom abductor the opportunity to abduct - the evening/night of 3rd May 2007.

I think because they had decided that the staged abduction would take place at that time on that date, and that GM would be the last person to see her alive
and that therefore he had to have an alibi to take any possible attention away from him and from KM

by **Cammerigal** 06.04.21 9:34

Verdi wrote:
Silentscope wrote:@crusader wrote: The Smith family have nothing to gain by telling lies. I would rather believe someone who didn't know the McCann's, than one of the tapas lot.

Absolutely, but the ‘Tannerman’ sighting was written down on the Children’s book pages BEFORE Jane made her verbal report later on. Why believe anything anyone says in this case anyway?

Someone thought it all up for her, EXACTLY WHEN those notes were written would narrow down the time of death considerably.

To note:

There were two glasses on the living room table.
Two timelines were written by two different Authors.
No one has independently confirmed the time at which they were actually written.
The book ‘The Interpretation of Murder’ appears to be on the Sofa in the living room according to 5A photographs.
Tannerman wore the same clothing as David Payne on the evening of the reported abduction according to the Social workers statement.

All seems to point to a hastily planned version of events, not cunningly conceived over days in advance.

Also not in response to being nearly caught on CCTV on the roadside Camera, or being seen by anyone on route to the Town centre if that is what really happened. The Smiths were not the only people around at that time. Anyone could have seen ‘Smithman’ if he is real.

Why were the Smiths the ONLY ones to notice him might be the right question?

You seriously need to tell your 'source', the person you are posting for, to get their facts right. Or at least check out the detail yourself before posting on his behalf - spreading false information is not helpful.

I strongly disagree with your negative put down there Verdi. Silentscope raised some valid points. We all have a voice, we all should be considered equally and moreover, Silentscope brings a non Brit, German perspective to the table.

As for me, I found this web site commentary on the MI5 conspiracy most interesting
https://patternsinthesand.blogspot.com/

As it stands, we are playing into the 'plan' by debating Smithman and the faked abduction activities at 10pm on the thursday. ad nauseum

by **Silentscope** 06.04.21 10:29

Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case D7545510

Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case 6e6c4410

Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case 3aa8a010

In order to be able to lie consistently, you have to have a good memory. Often a basis is used to support the chosen narrative.

What people have seen or read often plays it’s part in construction of a plan, just like Jane Tanners ‘Officer, Officer, I saw the whole thing’

Just after a girl dove out of the window in the Lethal Weapon film.

Pretty thin...?

by Guest 06.04.21 13:38

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Those are the photos taken by the PJ technician Joao Barreiras in the early hours of 4 May. There is a Statement referencing the activity and, from memory, he was/they were active between 01:00 and 03:30/04:00 taking pictures and doing the first fingerprint checks

PJfiles

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14479p50-key-witness-statements-for-information-only#434447

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSES PERFORMED
On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location.

PJfiles

Between the two crime scene inspections some hours apart, you will notice a number of differences - what appears to be a bag of some description in the wardrobe is just one example of now you see it now you don't, I doubt we will ever know why.

The two books that appear on the sofa in the second inspection photographic reports could be anything, there is nothing but a vivid imagination to support the theory. Even if it is was the Jed Rubenfeld novel - so what? I read stuff like that - does that make me a potential murderer - murder is a very ugly word when brandished without evidence! Or are you perhaps suggesting Gerry McCann, his wife or one other of the group sneaked back to apartment 5a and deliberately planted a book or two to draw attention to a possible homicide scenario?

The first alert as regards Gerry McCann's choice of reading matter was raised by the investigation, Dr Amaral in particular, following the specialist dogs inspection early August 2007. The Rubenfeld novel was photographed at the McCanns bedside at the villa they rented, along with other more intriguing reading matter.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/p1031400-a-book-at-bedtime

by **Silentscope** 06.04.21 14:17

Whatever happened to Madeleine, and when, defined the course of thinking and events thereafter.

If they had more time to think, they would have come up with an even better solution, possibly one that would not have raised as much suspicion when first investigated.

For example:

Swapping out the Sofa with one from another Apartment.
Swapping out the Curtains as well.
Cleaning the windows and Shutters.
Taking up and replacing the tiling on the floor.
Changing the Bedsheets/linen from an unused Bed in another Apartment.

But these things did not happen. Because either they did not think quickly enough or because they had no time?

Make up your own minds...

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.21 15:23

Silentscope wrote:Whatever happened to Madeleine, and when, defined the course of thinking and events thereafter.

If they had more time to think, they would have come up with an even better solution, possibly one that would not have raised as much suspicion when first investigated.

The evidence clearly shows that 'they' had four days in which to think - and plan. What they achieved was a very credible account of an abduction, supported by lots of 'evidence'. Put it this way, what they came up with was enough to convince the mainstream media, who 'floated' their initial story so successfully that from then on, it was nigh on impossible to seriously question their account of events. In marketing and media terms, their strategy was brilliant - even if it was a tissue of lies.

There are many 'tell-tale' signs of advance planning, @Silentscope, and you having been here quite a while now, I am very surprised you can't see them. Let's just review a few:

* Robert Murat summoned to Praia da Luz, arriving early on Tuesday
* Robert Murat in the right place at the right time to skew some of the interviews he interpreted and to attempt to influence the PJ investigation
* CEOP open up a 'dummy' Madeleine page on their website, Monday 30 April
* Apartment forensically cleaned - no trace of Madeleine's DNA
* Invention of Thursday 'high tea'
* Invention of David Payne - Kate McCann meeting 6.30pm Thursday
* Change of routine Monday onwards, avoiding the Millennium
* Emergency booking the Tapas restaurant Sunday night
* Priming Jane Tanner to identify a stranger carrying a bundle
* Priming Nuno Lourenco to identify Wojcek Krokowski, using the same description as Jane Tanner's stranger, and getting him to 'phone the PJ nearly Saturday morning - a master stroke by the planners, disrupting the PJ investigation on Day Two
* Cat Baker claiming Maddie was in the creche all week, and sailing on Thursday
* Pretending that the Last Photo was taken Thursday instead of Sunday
* Gerry pretending he bought his sunglasses on Tuesday
* Arranging for First Magazine to publish a fake story by the Boyds, claiming their son had been playing football for an hour with Maddie on the Thursday.

I'm really surprised you overlook all this - and more

by Guest 06.04.21 15:44

PeterMac wrote:
Verdi wrote:So back to Madeleine McCann disappearing on the night of 3rd May 2007 !?!
***
Why does Gerry McCann need an alibi to cover his movements on the evening of 3rd May 2007? By all intents and purposes, the dirty work had been done and dusted (literally?) days beforehand, the only remaining work in hand was to give the phantom abductor the opportunity to abduct - the evening/night of 3rd May 2007.

I think because they had decided that the staged abduction would take place at that time on that date, and that GM would be the last person to see her alive
and that therefore he had to have an alibi to take any possible attention away from him and from KM

I don''t see that at all.

Yes, the day and time of the fake abduction was pre-planned and possibly Gerry McCann was thought to be the right person to last see his daughter - although I can't see the reason why.

Whatever, Gerry McCann put himself in the position of being the last to visit apartment 5a before Kate McCann's visit and screams of 'abduction'. Why put yourself in a position that would require an alibi?

Martin Smith, nor any of his relatives can be considered alibis. They just allegedly passed a man in the street carrying a child - kind of putting McCann in the frame so to speak.

Gerry McCann hasn't got an alibi for the night of 3rd May 2007, apart from perhaps sitting at the Tapas restauant table, even that's tenuous. Jez Wilkins can't be considered an alibi, if the story is to be believed, he only met McCann in the street, that only puts the two of them together for a few minutes.

If you're going to pre-plan an event, you wouldn't put yourself in a situation that required an alibi - surely?

by **crusader** 06.04.21 16:06

@Tony Bennett..
Thank you for the above list of tell tale signs of advanced planning.
I haven't seen where Robert Murat skewed some of the interviews, interesting.
Please can you point me to which interviews they were?
Who was it that primed Nuno Laurenco to identify Wojcek krocowski and get him to phone the PJ.
The high tea on Thursday bothers me because there were only 3 children from Cat Bakers group There, Madeleine and 2 boy's.
For Cat Baker to be implicated in the deceit, she would have had to get other nannies involved.
Thank you.