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

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

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.

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.

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. 

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?

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

* CEOP open up a 'dummy' Madeleine page on their website, Monday 30 April

The Sun

By JULIE MOULT in Praia da Luz, Portugal
Published: 18 Aug 2007

THE parents of Madeleine McCann have told their twins for the first time their big sister is missing.

Kate and Gerry had been telling the inquisitive two-year-olds that Maddie was on a holiday.

But on the advice of top child psychologists they broke it to Sean and Amelie their big sister has disappeared and "Mummy and Daddy are looking for her".

A family friend said: "Kate and Gerry have been advised to be very open and to answer the twins' questions very truthfully.

"The twins understand the concept of missing in the same way they would miss a favourite toy.

"Madeleine is spoken about a lot and the twins do say they miss her. They adored her and had a very touching relationship.

Kate and Gerry are very mindful and careful not to upset them, and that is why they have taken advice on how to approach such a delicate and traumatic issue."

Doctors Kate and Gerry, both 39, have been in touch with British child experts since Maddie, four, vanished from an apartment while on holiday in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3.

They have even been visited by psychologists who have spent time with Sean and Amelie. Gerry said: "We've been advised that keeping a routine for them is very important for their coping. They are happy but know Madeleine is not here."

But that routine was disrupted last week when the twins had to be pulled out of a crèche for several days after it was besieged by the Portuguese media.

A friend said: "Kate was pretty shaken by it and the twins confused. It wasn't pleasant.

"Kate and Gerry take their parenting responsibilities very seriously and the top priority is that the twins have a normal life. They are very keen to protect their children. As long as they can do that they are happy to stay in Portugal."

The McCanns have been considering returning to the UK. But yesterday it emerged they had extended the lease on their villa in the resort for another month.

Meanwhile Portuguese cops were again under fire. The woman living in the apartment above the McCanns claimed she had not been spoken to by police until the British team arrived two weeks ago.

Expat Pamela Fenn, 73, told them she disturbed a burglar at her apartment about three weeks before Maddie vanished. She is now to give a formal statement to Portuguese officers.

A friend said: "She was surprised that neither the police nor the McCanns had approached her before."

Pamela also said her niece, who stayed with her the week Maddie disappeared, spotted somebody fitting the description of a man seen carrying a child away under a blanket. The pal added: "He was acting suspiciously."

The niece has given a statement to police in Britain.

Acknowledgement Nigel Moore of mccannfiles.com

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

crusader wrote:@Verdiwrote...

Meanwhile, the thread has gone way off topic. I will leave things as they are for the present but if the subject develops I will move to the approriate thread. Indeed I think I might do that anyway but it will have to wait until later. Feel free to continue here for the moment.


I agree, It's gone from one thing to the next. Please don't move it yet. I've spent hours today preparing to answer Tony. There are a lot of questions to get through. I will have to keep logging in or answer them in stages.

sharonl wrote:There is something very strange about the ex-pat community over there.

For me the biggest red flag in this area is the statement of Mrs Fenns niece, Carole Tramner and the claim that Mrs Fenn saw off a burglar.  Look at how Carole describes access to Mrs Fenns apartment and how ridiculous the prospect of a burglary is.  This claim was only made to back up the McCanns claim that there were burglaries in the area.  However, none had been reported to the police, not even Mrs Fenns.

Verdi wrote:

crusader wrote:@Verdiwrote...

Meanwhile, the thread has gone way off topic. I will leave things as they are for the present but if the subject develops I will move to the approriate thread. Indeed I think I might do that anyway but it will have to wait until later. Feel free to continue here for the moment.


I agree, It's gone from one thing to the next. Please don't move it yet. I've spent hours today preparing to answer Tony. There are a lot of questions to get through. I will have to keep logging in or answer them in stages.

Consider it done .... or not done as the case maybe.  You are safe to continue here on this thread unabated until further notice   .

Sounds like your observations on Tony's questions will definitely warrant pride of place somewhere more appropriate.