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

by **Silentscope** 06.04.21 16:44

It depends Tony on your point of view.

All of your above points are perfectly reasonable if you believe Madeleine died between Sunday and Wednesday. This is still entirely possible and plausible.

I still wonder if she was just so unwell from an accidental cumulative overdose, that she was unable to attend these events? At which point in time she actually expired has never been determined. Her body cannot tell us as it has not been found. No one wants to tell us when her body was discovered behind the Sofa, and who removed it.

That a certain amount of ‘back filling’ has happened to give the impression she was fit and well earlier in the week is not disputed.

I would expect a Doctor to be able recognise the Symptoms of Paracetamol poisoning, which can occur within 1-3 days.

Thursday night two Children were being sick, if they were both being given the same ‘treatment’ it would result in professional problems for all those Parents.

One Child apparently did not make it.

Resulting in the ensuing coverup?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.21 22:39

Verdi wrote:

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?

REPLY: It seems that the play being acted out on Thursday night involved Matt Oldfield doing a check at around 9.30pm.to 9.35pm. His version of events is that he opened the door to the children’s bedroom but can’t be sure he saw Madeleine. To add a bit of colour to the whole tale and suggest that the abductor might have stolen Madeleine between 9.10pm and 9.30mpm he added the detail that the room ‘seemed lighter’ than before. The pliant media hyped up this point.

Crusader wrote:

I haven't seen where Robert Murat skewed some of the interviews, interesting. Please can you point me to which interviews they were?

REPLY: IIRC Robert Murat’s main task was to interview the creche workers, about seven or eight I think. The suggestion has been made that, on the assumption that he was part of the cover-up, he was able to influence and manipulate what they said in their statements, hence the suggestion that he skewed their evidence. Further evidence of his corrupt actions as an interpreter was provided by Inspector Varanda’s detailed statement, as a result of which Murat was removed from being an interpreter.

Who was it that primed Nuno Lourenco to identify Wojcek Krokowski and get him to phone the PJ?

REPLY: I don’t know. But my suggestion is that there must have been at least one, or two or three, planning meetings that week to sketch out the outline of the hoax and assign particular individuals to their respective roles and supply each with a script. Clearly in my view Wojcek Krokowski was the fall guy in this situation, or more accurately, a ‘pretend’ fall guy.

He wore rather odd, old-fashioned clothes. He had a penchant for taking pictures of children, as he formally admitted to a Sunday People journalist, I think in the 2014 article about him. Thus Jane Tanner was given a description that matched Krokowski. Lourenco’s task was to double-frame Krokowski by inventing the story that Krokowski had nearly kidnapped his daughter at Sagres beach on Sunday 29 April. To make sure the PJ could identify Krokowski, he took a photo of Krokowski’s hired car, making sure that the police knew this had taken place on Sunday. He told the PJ: “Look at the date and time stamp, that proves it!” It’s all in his statement. He wasn’t the only one that week to claim that ‘the date and time stamp’ proved when a certain photo was taken. There was another element to this ingenious sub-plot, namely Krokowski being photographed, with his wife/lover, emerging from a Lisbon shop having just bought a CD of Brazilian jazz music. This story was supplied to the police and media by the manager of the Burgau beach bar, whom I suggest was either Ralph Eveleigh or his manager. I think it is possible that a planning meeting that week was actually held in Krokowski’s rented apartment, because hairs of the same haplotype as both Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were later found there by the PJ. Here then is a likely scenario. A planning group gathers in Krokowski’s apartment, with Jane Tanner and Robert Murat present, together with others, quite possibly Nuno Lourneco as well. At this meeting, Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco were given their scripts. It is equally posisble that Tanner and Lourenco were given ther marching orders in a different location. To fully understand Nuno Lourenco’s evidence, which was a pack of lies from start to finish, take a look at my two articles about Lourenco/Krokowski which are on the forum somewhere.

The high tea on Thursday bothers me because there were only 3 children from Cat Baker’s group there, Madeleine and 2 boys.

REPLY: There are far too many contradictions about this alleged high tea to believe it actually happened. This is where Goncalo Amaral and his team were badly deceived. It shows the cunning and briliance of the cover-up.

For Cat Baker to be implicated in the deceit, she would have had to get other nannies involved.

REPLY: No. She alone was the creche nanny for the Lobsters group. But other nannies may well be involved. The evidence of Amy Tierney for example was all over the place.

Silentscope wrote:

I still wonder if she was just so unwell from an accidental cumulative overdose, that she was unable to attend these events? At which point in time she actually expired has never been determined. Her body cannot tell us as it has not been found. No one wants to tell us when her body was discovered behind the sofa, and who removed it.

REPLY: Certainly some of us speculated many years ago on something like this having happened. Of course, if you’re right, Cat Baker lied about her being in the creche all week. But who really saw Madeleine that week? Only those close to the McCanns. Other claims of ‘sightings’ of Maddie that week were either proved false or too vague to be of any evidential value.

Thursday night two children were being sick, if they were both being given the same ‘treatment’ it would result in professional problems for all those parents. One child apparently did not make it.

REPLY: The claim that the O’Briens’ daughter was sick depends on whether you believe Russell O’Brien’s evidence is true.

by **crusader** 06.04.21 22:46

@ Tony Bennett, Thank you for taking the time to reply to my queries.

by Guest 07.04.21 0:55

Silentscope wrote:It depends Tony on your point of view.

No, I think it depends more Silentscope on your mentor's understanding of the case.

Enough of this worthless forum distraction, you've had your fun. There are more important things at stake than idle mischief.

Follow the evidence ....

by **Silentscope** 07.04.21 9:41

Everyone has a different point of view on this case Verdi.

Even Pat Brown or Christian Brückner.

There are more important things at stake to be sure.

I am working on the principle that other people, no matter how useless they are - should not be used to cover up other people’s parenting mistakes. Before he becomes the ‘most perfect Suspect’ or DEAD.

by Guest 07.04.21 10:08

Silentscope wrote:Everyone has a different point of view on this case Verdi.

And therein lies the problem.

There are too many opinions.

If people could just focus on looking at what the available evidence is and stop speculating or theorizing, everyone would come to the same conclusion, because evidence is truth. You can't have different "points of view" if you're all just looking at the evidence.

by **Silentscope** 07.04.21 10:41

I can quite believe the evidence that points to Madeleine being deceased before the reported ‘Abduction’ Paulo, it seems strange to me that Pat Brown seems stuck on the Thursday night scenario.

How much time it took to discover the body, remove it, clean up and concoct the ‘plan’ is still sliding from Sunday to Thursday depending on what people decide to accept as being true or not.

The ‘evidence’ supplied by the Tapas group and their supporters and sources cannot be trusted.

It is therefore no wonder to me that opinions vary based on what people choose to believe or not.

I see the real problem as being that no-one will be safe if the Powers that be decide that we must all follow only the evidence that they provide, and will be led to the conclusion that they want.

Hence Herr Wolters ‘if only you knew’ the evidence statement.

by **crusader** 07.04.21 10:51

Evidence can also be interpreted in many way's, by theorizing and looking at the evidence, the researchers on this forum have come up with what they, and indeed many people believe is probably what happened.
Nobody, including experts in body language profilers and the police know for sure what happened, it's all informed guess work.
That said, this forum is in my opinion, the way forward, because we are all in the same mind, wanting to find out what happened to Madeleine.
I quite agree that outlandish speculation and theorizing is not helpful, but coming up with theories based on the evidence does no harm, isn't that what the experts are doing?
At the moment, there is no concrete proof of what happened to Madeleine.

by Guest 07.04.21 11:13

crusader wrote:Evidence can also be interpreted in many way's, by theorizing and looking at the evidence, the researchers on this forum have come up with what they, and indeed many people believe is probably what happened.
Nobody, including experts in body language profilers and the police know for sure what happened, it's all informed guess work.
That said, this forum is in my opinion, the way forward, because we are all in the same mind, wanting to find out what happened to Madeleine.
I quite agree that outlandish speculation and theorizing is not helpful, but coming up with theories based on the evidence does no harm, isn't that what the experts are doing?
At the moment, there is no concrete proof of what happened to Madeleine.

Theories are not going to solve the case.

Sticking to the facts is the way to go...

by **crusader** 07.04.21 11:21

@Paulo Alexandre wrote...

Theories are not going to solve the case.

Sticking to the facts is the way to go...

I have a theory but I'm keeping it to myself.

by **Jill Havern** 07.04.21 11:34

That's ^^^ a shame then, because you might have hit on something that we haven't.

A bit like the long-sleeved pyjama top in Aoife's statement, which throws doubt on Smithman carrying Madeleine. Maybe he was just another crecheman.

We do have a Debate Section for purporting theories....purport away!

by sequested 07.04.21 11:37

The fact is : Madeline Beth McCann disappeared on, or before, Thursday 3 May 2007
The evidence is : ....................................................

Cue theorizing around a multitude of statements.

by **Silentscope** 07.04.21 11:57

For the record, here are my 5 main points on this case.

1. There can ONLY BE a ‘Abduction’.
2. All ‘Sightings’ assist the Illusion that she is still alive.
3. The Dogs and Forensics will always be ‘inconclusive’.
4. All Statements given are to be believed without question.
5. Any disbelief will result in threats and consequences.

All the actions of an innocent party?

by Guest 07.04.21 12:58

crusader wrote:I quite agree that outlandish speculation and theorizing is not helpful, but coming up with theories based on the evidence does no harm, isn't that what the experts are doing?

And there lies the key - 'based on evidence'!

by Guest 07.04.21 13:09

Silentscope wrote:.... it seems strange to me that Pat Brown seems stuck on the Thursday night scenario.

I can't see why it's strange to you, you yourself were stuck on the Thursday night scenario only a few hours ago.

Sorry to say, your posting history is all over the shot, just random rambling that makes no sense whatsover.

It's the inconsistency I find intolerable, the result of posting on someone else's behalf. In short, I don't think you know/understand what you're talking about but please carry-on regardless.

Constructive criticism of course!

by **Silentscope** 07.04.21 14:05

I thought we were discussing why Pat Brown’s theory could be accurate or not? It could be, but I do not know for sure.

Most theories I have read on this Forum, and elsewhere make perfect sense, and most follow the same patterns.

Which pieces of ‘evidence’ are accepted or rejected by their Authors make up the variety in them, but I find all to be on the same track.

Just a track Operation Grange never was allowed to follow up.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.21 16:07

Paulo Alexandre wrote:
Silentscope wrote:Everyone has a different point of view on this case Verdi.
And therein lies the problem.

There are too many opinions.

If people could just focus on looking at what the available evidence is and stop speculating or theorizing, everyone would come to the same conclusion, because evidence is truth. You can't have different "points of view" if you're all just looking at the evidence.

But the evidence must be properly evaluated. Take the Smith sighting as an obvious example. Martin Smith and some of his family insist they saw a man carrying a blond girl at 10pm on Thursday 10pm. Some say: "This was Gerry McCann". I said back in October 2013 that the Smiths' account was fabricated, because of (a) severe intrinsic problems with their statement and (b) because it conflicted with other evidence about Madeleine possibly having died earlier in the week. Very few people agreed with me in 2013, many more do so in 2021.

Pamela Fenn on 20 August 2007 made a statement that she heard a child crying 'Daddy, Daddy', ever louder and louder, for 75 minutes. Most Maddie McCann researchers say this 'proves' that Madeleine was alive on the Tuesday evening. I personally believed that to be true for many years. But then I spent a very long time analysing everything I could find about that alleged incident, including the evidence of Carol Tramner (which conflicted with that of her aunt Pamela Fenn). I have made several posts about my evidence on this forum. I concluded that this was made up, under pressure from others. I backed that up by showing newspaper reports from 17, 18 & 19 August 2007 in the British media announcing what she was going to tell the PJ. She herself declared her statement was 'all nonsense'.

IMO anyone who insists that the Smith and Fenn statements are true, wilfully blinds themselves to critically evaluating the weight of other evidence that points to a serious event befalling Maddie on the Sunday.

by **Silentscope** 07.04.21 20:53

I did take your recap on board Tony, about 2015 you guys did do a thread on the ‘way back machine’ and the likelihood of CEOP and Jim Gamble having something to do with the ‘dummy Madeleine site’ - apparently set up in advance of her disappearance.

But it appears there were several possibilities as to how and why it happened.

All arguments and opinions aside, most of the ‘evidence’ appears so divisive in itself, no-one unless they are a Forensic computer specialist could figure out what happened...

Then present it successfully in Court so a Jury could understand it all.

That is why the ‘Ermittlungsverfahren’ the Investigation stage against Christian B will take forever, because there is no time limit set on this phase.

If it ever got to the ‘Swischenverfahren’ the pre-trial evaluation stage,
I wonder if the Judges would even consider taking it on to the ‘Hauptverfahren’ or main Trial stage?

I think PeterMac summed it up best ‘it’s all gone quiet over there’

The Penny dropped a long time ago...

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.21 21:03

Silentscope wrote:I did take your recap on board Tony, about 2015 you guys did do a thread on the ‘way back machine’ and the likelihood of CEOP and Jim Gamble having something to do with the ‘dummy Madeleine site’ - apparently set up in advance of her disappearance.

But it appears there were several possibilities as to how and why it happened.

We had an email after one of Richard Hall's videos from someone who worked for CEOP on a self-employed basis. He said that some weeks BEFORE Madeleine was reported missing, Jim Gamble approached him personally, and not through the usual channels, to help him set up some special pages for the CEOP website. His information seemed credible and he gave names of some CEOP staff. We were not quite sure what to make of it

by Guest 08.04.21 1:47

Silentscope wrote:#46 I thought we were discussing why Pat Brown’s theory could be accurate or not? It could be, but I do not know for sure.

Silentscope wrote:#48 I did take your recap on board Tony, about 2015 you guys did do a thread on the ‘way back machine’ and the likelihood of CEOP and Jim Gamble having something to do with the ‘dummy Madeleine site’ - apparently set up in advance of her disappearance

Why do you raise the subject of Jim Gamble, the CEOP and the wayback machine debacle on this thread? A thrashed out debunked subject of yesteryear?

Do tell ....

No conferring.

by Guest 08.04.21 1:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Silentscope wrote:I did take your recap on board Tony, about 2015 you guys did do a thread on the ‘way back machine’ and the likelihood of CEOP and Jim Gamble having something to do with the ‘dummy Madeleine site’ - apparently set up in advance of her disappearance.

But it appears there were several possibilities as to how and why it happened.

We had an email after one of Richard Hall's videos from someone who worked for CEOP on a self-employed basis. He said that some weeks BEFORE Madeleine was reported missing, Jim Gamble approached him personally, and not through the usual channels, to help him set up some special pages for the CEOP website. His information seemed credible and he gave names of some CEOP staff. We were not quite sure what to make of it

Careful Tony

beware

by **crusader** 08.04.21 8:10

@TonyBennett wrote....

IMO anyone who insists that the Smith and Fenn statements are true, wilfully blinds themselves to critically evaluating the weight of other evidence that points to a serious event befalling Maddie on the Sunday.

I believe the Smith sighting is true and I have no reason to believe Pamela Fenn is lying. Until I see a plausible explanation as to why these people are lying, I will still consider their statements to be valid.

If the Smith statements are true and they did indeed see who they thought was Gerry carrying Madeleine, that could be seen as proof Madeleine was alive until the 3rd May.

What if the Smiths are telling the truth and they believe it was Gerry and Madeleine ,but it wasn't Madeleine, it was one of the other blond little girls (wearing long sleeve pyjamas)

Either way, it could be said that Gerry was in the right place at the right time and seen, not by accident.

by **Silentscope** 08.04.21 9:03

Mrs Fenn saying she never heard a thing, and never knew that the Family was in there.

Who the Smiths actually saw being carried by who is still an open question as far as I am concerned. The only ‘sighting’ that ever seemed to excite them was the ‘AMSTERDAMVU@gmail.com’ email.
Which saved them from attending two TV interviews!

by **Silentscope** 08.04.21 9:12

Verdi wrote:
Silentscope wrote:#46 I thought we were discussing why Pat Brown’s theory could be accurate or not? It could be, but I do not know for sure.
Silentscope wrote:#48 I did take your recap on board Tony, about 2015 you guys did do a thread on the ‘way back machine’ and the likelihood of CEOP and Jim Gamble having something to do with the ‘dummy Madeleine site’ - apparently set up in advance of her disappearance

Why do you raise the subject of Jim Gamble, the CEOP and the wayback machine debacle on this thread? A thrashed out debunked subject of yesteryear?

Do tell ....

No conferring.

Because Tony mentioned it in his recap, as an indication of pre-planning.

Whether it was a ‘glitch’ a typo, or something else has never been precisely determined.

by **crusader** 08.04.21 9:17

What Mrs Fenn said to journalists who were mithering her, was not a statement, in my opinion, it was an off the cuff remark in a flustered moment.

The statement she made to police is the truth in my opinion.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.04.21 9:31

Verdi wrote:
Silentscope wrote:#48 I did take your recap on board Tony, about 2015 you guys did do a thread on the ‘way back machine’ and the likelihood of CEOP and Jim Gamble having something to do with the ‘dummy Madeleine site’ - apparently set up in advance of her disappearance

Why do you raise the subject of Jim Gamble, the CEOP and the wayback machine debacle on this thread? A thrashed out debunked subject of yesteryear?

Do tell...

No conferring.

To be fair, @Verdi, I raised it myself as it was one of a dozen or so evidences I gave upthread - which I quoted in evidence of something serious having befallen Madeleine very early that week

by **Tony Bennett** 08.04.21 10:18

crusader wrote:@TonyBennett wrote....

IMO anyone who insists that the Smith and Fenn statements are true, wilfully blinds themselves to critically evaluating the weight of other evidence that points to a serious event befalling Maddie on the Sunday.

crusader replied:

I believe the Smith sighting is true and I have no reason to believe Pamela Fenn is lying. Until I see a plausible explanation as to why these people are lying, I will still consider their statements to be valid.

If the Smith statements are true and they did indeed see who they thought was Gerry carrying Madeleine, that could be seen as proof Madeleine was alive until the 3rd May.

What if the Smiths are telling the truth and they believe it was Gerry and Madeleine, but it wasn't Madeleine, it was one of the other blond little girls (wearing long sleeve pyjamas).

Either way, it could be said that Gerry was in the right place at the right time and seen, not by accident.

@crusader

OK, here we have a major difference of opinion on the evidence. I would like, please, to clarify your post and your reasoning. I hope that just as I gave you the fullest possible answers to your legitimate queries, you may also do me the courtesy of doing likewise. I would appreciate it - and the forum s a whole would benefit from your honest answers and further input.

In terms of clarification, please help by answering these queries:

1. Regarding Pamela Fenn, do you believe that Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying, or was it one of the other children (the twins) or could it have been another child altogether?

2. Have you read this thread of mine?
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15971-10-reasons-which-suggest-that-pamela-fenn-did-not-hear-any-child-crying-on-tuesday-1-may-2007

3. Which other threads of mine dealing with Pamela Fenn's evidence have you read please?

4. Why do you believe Mrs Fenn's evidence despite its obvious problems and yet disbelieve her when she plainly says in her own words: "It's all rubbish"?

5. Could you please clarify what you are saying about the Smithman sighting? Am I right in thinking that you agree that the Smiths really did see someone carrying a young blonde girt?

6. You wrote this:

What if the Smiths are telling the truth and they believe it was Gerry and Madeleine, but it wasn't Madeleine, it was one of the other blonde little girls (wearing long sleeve pyjamas).

What is your precise position?

Was this man Gerry McCann, or someone else?

If not Gerry McCann, was it someone connected to the McCanns?

Do you say that it was Madeleine, or do you prefer the theory that Gerry (or someone else) was carrying 'another little blonde girl'? If you believe it was 'another little blonde girl', who do you say this was, or might have been? For what reason would someone have been carrying 'another little blonde girl' in the direction of the beach at 10pm on a chilly May night?

7. You also wrote this:

Either way, it could be said that Gerry was in the right place at the right time and seen, not by accident.

I freely confess that I could not follow what you meant by this. It seemed as though you might be suggesting that this man was Gerry, and that he purposely meant to be seen by someone because "he was in the right place at the right time". Is this what you meant? If so, please could you explain what Gerry McCann could possibly achieve by walking through the streets of Praia da Luz carrying Madeleine (or some other child, per your theory) at the very same time that his wife and the Tapas 7 were raising the alarm about a missing child. I don't follow.

8. Have you read this thread?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions

If so, please could you go through each of those 12 sets of contradictions and fully explain ech one? We would all be grateful for your input on this.

9. Have you read this thread?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16451-smithman-12-can-anyone-who-still-believes-that-the-smiths-saw-gerry-mccann-carrying-madeleine-satisfactorily-answer-any-of-these-60-questions

If so, can you give a satisfactory answer to each of those questions?

We have a major conflict of view about the evidence of two witnesses, each of which Goncalo Amaral and the PJ were inclined to believe. And to get back to the title of the thread, so does Pat Brown.

Help us please with the fullest possible answer to my queries.

And thanks in advance

.

by Guest 08.04.21 11:24

The statements by the Smiths about their alleged sighting make as much sense as Janne Tanner's statements about the alleged man she allegedly saw.

A great post by Tony Bennett in a Smithman thread exposes the problems with one of the Smiths' statements:

Tony Bennett wrote:In weighing up Aoife Smith’s statement, we must once again remind ourselves that when she says she saw this man with a child…

* It was already dark (10.00pm)

* The street lighting was, in their words, ‘weak’

* The man had his head down

* The child was obscuring part of the man’s upper body and head

* They only saw him, at most, for a few seconds

* None of them took any action to report their sighting for 13 days, and

* All of them said they would never be able to recognise him if they saw him again.

We must also bear in mind the truly remarkable level of similarity between the statements of Nuno Lourenco about Wojcek Krokowski, Jane Tanner and he Smiths about Smithman. As I’ve tried to suggest on the Wojcek Krokowski and Smithman threads, and as Richard Hall has also suggested in his ‘Phantoms’ film, there is evidence that all three were working to a prepared script.

A further point is the unreliable content of so very many witness statements in this case of smoke and mirrors. Are we to make an exception for the Smiths, and not trouble to put them under any scrutiny at all?

Let’s now look, for example, at one reference you make ,as follows: “The man carrying the girl appeared a couple of metres in front of her”. That is from Aoife Smith’s statement.

When she encountered this man, he was - she says - walking in the opposite direction to her and other family members. He suddenly appeared - her own words – two metres in front of her. That’s just over 6 feet, the length of a typical bed, or 2 to 3 paces.

So, by the time they have each taken just one more pace, they will very nearly have crossed with each other. A typical pace takes just over half a second. By the time they had each taken one more pace, they would already have crossed. So Aoife Smith had no more than one second’s sight of this man, even on her own evidence. She says nothing about having then turned round do look at him behind her.

With all that in mind, let’s look at exactly how Aoife Smith described the man and child:

1 - the man was white
2 - the man was ‘light-skinned’
3 - the man was out ‘of normal complexion’
4 - the man between 20 and 30 years old
5 - the man was 1.75m to 1.8m in height (5’ 9” to 5’ 11”)
6 - the man was of ‘normal physique’
7 – she thinks the man was clean-shaven
8 – she doesn’t remember any tattoos, scars or earrings
9 - he had ‘thickish’ here
10 - the hair was light brown in colour
11 - his hair was ‘cut short’
12 - he was wearing trousers, which were beige in colour,
13 - his trousers were made of cotton
14 - his trousers possibly had buttons on them
15 - she can’t say what he was wearing on top because ‘the child he was carrying covered him completely from the top’
16 - he was walking ‘normally’
17 - the child he was carrying was female
18 - the child had straight hair
19 - the child’s hair was long, down to the neck
20 - the girl was about four years old ‘because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height’
21 - she didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder
22 - despite not seeing the child’s face, she says the child ‘appeared to be sleeping’
23 - the child’s arms were suspended along her body and were not around the man’s neck
24 - despite not seeing the child’s face, she thinks the child was white
25 - the child had no covering over her
26 - she was wearing trousers or pyjama bottoms
27 - they were ‘light’ in colour
28 - they were ‘white’ or ‘light pink’
29 - they were made of ‘light material’
30 - they could have been made of cotton
31 - she was wearing a top
32 - it was ‘light’ in colour
33 - it had long sleeves.

She added the following to her statement: “she would probably not be able to recognise the individual or the child again”.

Now just imagine for one moment that you are on a jury.

Forget for a moment that the case has anything to do with Madeleine McCann.

You are presented with a witness.

She is 12 years old.

She tells you that she saw a bloke in the dark.

She then tells you that she had no more than a second in which to see him.

You then hear her reel off a list of 33 separate details of the man and the child.

How, as a juror, would you assess the reliability of her evidence?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11056-smithman-5-the-evidence-of-the-smith-family-from-drogheda-ireland-the-twelve-sets-of-contradictions#316772

by Guest 08.04.21 13:16

Tony Bennett wrote:To be fair, @Verdi, I raised it myself as it was one of a dozen or so evidences I gave upthread - which I quoted in evidence of something serious having befallen Madeleine very early that week

Indeed you did Tony, as you say one of a dozen or so evidences, with no reference to past discussion here on CMOMM..