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

by **Verdi** 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 **Paulo Alexandre** 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 **Verdi** 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..

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

Onwards and upwards!

by **Verdi** 08.04.21 13:26

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14479p25-key-witness-statements-for-information-only#373644

by **Verdi** 08.04.21 15:50

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16359-darren-ware-mrs-fenn-s-statements-extracts-from-when-madeleine-died#402215

by **Verdi** 08.04.21 16:24

Pamela Fenn's witness statement was given to the Portuguese police on 20th August 2007, three and a half months after Madeleine McCann's reported disappearance.

This event happened two days after a media blitz hit the UK, the 18th August 2007.

Just one such press report..

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

What prompted Pamela Fenn to present herself as a witness on 20th August 2007, two days after the media blitz, I don't believe has ever been established. The most two likely candidates in my view are Clarence Mitchell and/or Pamela Fenn's niece, Carole Tranmar, another interesting character in her own right.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14972p100-candid-camera-clarence-mitchell#428872

This has been discussed extensively across the forum in the distant past, if anyone is interested let me know and I will dig it out.

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.

thumbsup

by crusader 08.04.21 16:34

@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.

by **Verdi** 08.04.21 16:38

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

The Mundo video sound is very poor quality, I can only roughly transcribe what was said by Pamela Fenn..

Honestly, I have never .... I've been here for three months, they write rubbish in the newspapers. I've never spoken to a journalist - it's rubbish, I've never even uttered a word. I've .. er .. it's all rubbish - leave me please just forget it.

This transcript is from another anonymous source..

Honestly, I have... I know nothing. I have been here three months, until all this happened. I've never spoken to a journalist, they've written rubbish in newspapers, I've never even uttered a word! I've never (sighs)... it's all rubbish! Please, please, just forget it.

Pretty much the same. Whatever, one thing for sure. Pamela Fenn said nothing about 'not hearing a thing or not knowing the family was in there' during that brief video clip!

by **Verdi** 08.04.21 16:42

@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 thumbsup

.

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

Later ....

by crusader 08.04.21 16:46

Thank you

by **sharonl** 08.04.21 18:58

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.04.21 19:20

@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.

Exactly!

Mrs Fenn's burglary claim has even more holes in it than 'I heard a child crying for 75 minutes, louder and louder, and did nothing about it'.

I hoping that when 'crusader' returns, s/he will fully address the burglary claim as well as the crying claim.

by crusader 08.04.21 19:31

In answer to your questions Tony...
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?

I believe it was Madeleine Mrs Fenn was talking about.

She said she had no doubt the noise was coming from the floor below.

The crying stopped when the parent's arrived, she didn't see the parents, she heard the patio door open.

The nearest child and not baby was Ella O'Brien 3 doors away.

Sorry about the delay, my new laptop keeps crashing.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.04.21 20:06

@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.

I think that's very much the right decision @Verdi

After all, the topic is about Pat Brown's five best lines of evidence.

When I saw the title of this thread, I frankly assumed it to mean that we would be debating whether Pat Brown's five evidences were indeed the best, or even correct. So I produced some of my best evidences for the scenario of a serious event befalling Madeleine on the Sunday.

Incidentally Verdi, could you do us a favour on this thread and just remind us, if you would be kind enough, what, in summary, were Pat Brown's five best evidences. It would help us a lot.

I look forward to a robust, polite and honest debate with 'crusader'...and may the best evidence about what really happened to Madeleine McCann emerge from the debate (and I hope many others will join in the debate)

by crusader 08.04.21 21:33

I have just spent the last 2 hours replying to Tony and it's all gone. angry2

When I tried to post, it said log in, when I did, it all disappeared. I don't know if it's this laptop, but there is no way to save anything.
I'll get my old one out and try that... Gutted

by **Jill Havern** 08.04.21 21:53

Type it out in a word processing document, then copy and paste.

Or...type it out in a private message and send it to yourself. I've been known to do that myself big grin

by crusader 08.04.21 22:30

2. Have you read this thread of mine? yes I have

1. On her own admission, she did not report the crying incident to the police at the time, or later
True, perhaps she more annoyed at first than worried.She did'nt know the cause of the crying. she thought perhaps it was because of a nightmare.She contacted a friend, Edna Glyn telling her of the situation.

2. She appears to have been prompted into making her statement by the McCann Team
I think it's more to do with a friend of Mrs Fenn giving an interview to the papers. It was her who gave the details of the burglary and how Mrs Fenn tried to push him out of the window, the suspicious blond man opening gate, which incidentally was not in my opinion the McCann gate, I believe it was the Oldfield's gate Carol Tramner was meaning.

The friend also said Mrs Fenn remembers the time of the crying because she was talking to friend back home and watching the 10-30 news. This was from Gerry mcCann's Blog by Pamalam.

[size=16]3. Mrs Fenn’s account of a burglary at her home in the weeks before 28^th April is at the very least open to doubt. If she was not truthful about that, we simply cannot use her statement as evidence of anything[/size]

[size=16]I don't doubt Mrs Fenn's statement that she made to police. We don't know what she said in her first statement and if the friend is to be believed, she did report it at the time.[/size]

by crusader 08.04.21 22:33

I am so sorry about the bitty replies, everything is going wrong today. Thanks Jill, I'll try that, the dammed thing is going back on Monday.

by crusader 08.04.21 23:11

4. Despite a child allegedly continually crying and sobbing for 75 minutes, with other properties all around, not one other person has ever corroborated the ‘crying incident’. No-one else heard it.

Robert Murat allegedly reported to a policeman that some foreign woman had called him about a crying child. Mrs Fenn isn't foreign and Mrs Edna Glyn doesn't sound foreign so perhaps somebody did.

5. Mrs Fenn says that she ’phoned and spoke to a Mrs Edna Glyn ‘some time after 11.00pm’, that is, after the crying had been going on for over half-an-hour. We have never seen any corroboration of this from Mrs Glyn

True, But why would she lie, I think we would have heard from Edna Glyn if the statement wasn't true.

6. It is claimed by Mrs Fenn that when she spoke to Mrs Glyn, she replied: ‘I am not surprised’. According to Mrs Fenn’s evidence, the child she heard crying was sobbing continually - and so must have been audible to her and Mrs Glyn as they were talking (if they were). Yet on Mrs Fenn’s evidence, neither of them bothered to lift a finger about it. They could have called the police or the Ocean Club. But they did nothing

She did call her friend Edna Glyn, she was obviously unsure about what to do, perhaps she thought/hoped the parents would be back soon.
Some people don't like to interfere.

7. In any event, Mrs Fenn’s account of contacting Mrs Glyn about the crying appears to conflict with the account of a police officer, who testified that Robert Murat had said that ‘some foreign woman’ had ’phoned him up on the night of the ‘crying incident’

I can't see it as a conflict, It shows that someone else did hear the crying.

8. The description Mrs Fenn gives about the age of the child that she says she heard crying is strange, clumsy and contrived. Allowing for the possibility that something may have been ‘lost in translation’, her statement says that the crying was coming from directly below her and that “the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger”. The twins were two years and two months during the holiday in Praia da Luz. Thus Pamela Fenn’s statement appears to rule them out. There is at least a suspicion therefore that her statement has been carefully crafted to suggest that it was Madeleine that was crying

I don't think Mrs Fenn's statement was carefully crafted to suggest it was Madelene crying, she couldn't be more clear that it WAS Madeleine that was crying.

9. A news clip about Mrs Fenn appeared on SIC TV, Portugal, on 22 August two days after her statement at Portimao Police Station. In it, she denied having any information about the case:

Mrs Fenn never said she had spoken to police, she clearly said she has never spoken to journalists .

10. Mrs Fenn herself was interviewed for the programme and said that anything she was supposed to have said to the police was ‘rubbish’.

She wasn't "interviewed" she was being harassed by the media.
She said they've written rubbish in the newspapers, I've never uttered a word it's all rubbish. forget it.