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

by **crusader** 08.04.21 23:33

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

I read everything you write, but I'm not, as been shown, in full agreement with some things, I believe Pamela Fenn and The Smiths Statements are true as they see it for instance.

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"?

I can't remember saying I disbelieve her saying it's all rubbish.
She said they have written rubbish in the newspapers. " Ive never even uttered a word its all rubbish forget it"

by **crusader** 08.04.21 23:43

That covers the Pamela Fenn part, I've tried to explain my reasons as best I can and I hope it is enough. I wasn't expecting to be discussing her.

I'll answer your questions on Robert Murat tomorrow if that's ok.

by Guest 09.04.21 1:28

Tony Bennett wrote: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.

Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case - Page 4 Scre1446

Hee-haw! Hee-haw! big grin

That's a big ask!

What an eccentric performance, is it an American thing or is Ms Brown on something, it's borderline hysteria.

Quick summary of first 30 minutes, it's all about Pat Brown. She is so committed to her work (as I previously suggested) she doesn't have the time to concentrate on the case of Madeleine McCann alone, thus during this video she relies heavily on the chat feed to bring her up to speed. The chat feed is rather like twitter so is less than reliable. Still, who cares just as long as they say nice things about the profiler, on pain of punishment should you criticize.

bignono

Cutting through the superfluous verbiage, the criminal profiler so far has only reiterated what so many here on CMOMM have said before, over and over again.

In short, there is no evidence of abduction. As we all know without the credentials of a 'Criminal Profiler', in terms of law the lack of evidence doesn't prove that an abduction didn't take place but it does form the base on the investigation - my words.

Ms Brown eventually moves on to the establishment of Operation Grange, again reliant on the chat feed to remind her of things she has long since forgotten. Basically, as we all know, Ms Brown then concentrates on the remit of Operation Grange - looking at the case with only abduction as a possible scenario, ignoring the PJ investigation and any other possibilities.

Well I think we all know that by now, that is a fact printed indelibly in the annuls of time - Operation Grange said so themselves.

And that is far as it goes at this stage. It will have to get better if I'm to continue with this escapade.

Sorry to say but Ms Brown's performance is a trifle too theatrical for my liking, keep it interesting yes but don't turn it into a soap opera if you want to retain your credibility, your audience and to be convincing.

I only hope she was a little more circumspect when on Portuguese soil with Dr Amaral back in the day.

I will persevere for the sake of the forum but I'm not sure how long it will last. Patience is not my strong point.

by **ShiningInLuz** 09.04.21 7:16

Pat Brown's 5 Main Clues were these. In her view obviously.

1 No PHYSICAL evidence of abduction.

2 No CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of abduction.

3 Dog evidence. Eddie and Keela alerts. Particularly behind the sofa.

4 Odd behaviour of the McCanns

5 Kate could sleep after a few days (i.e. she knew what had happened).

To repeat, these are Pat Brown's views in 5 Main Points.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.04.21 10:11

Thank you @Verdi and @ShiningInLuz and of course @crusader for your responses. I will reply fully to your points just as soon as I am able.

Pat Brown's five main clues are reasonable. They point to Madeleine having died during that holiday and not having been abducted. But that's as far as she goes. She still believes, as Goncalo Amaral has done up to now (but wait for his book!) that Madeleine was at that alleged high tea at 5pm-6pm on Thursday 3 May and then suffered a death, perhaps violent, in the apartment after 6pm. Surely that is a scenario that no-one who has studied this case in detail can hold to any longer?

by **crusader** 09.04.21 10:31

She still believes, as Goncalo Amaral has done up to now (but wait for his book!) that Madeleine was at that alleged high tea at 5pm-6pm on Thursday 3 May and then suffered a death, perhaps violent, in the apartment after 6pm. Surely that is a scenario that no-one who has studied this case in detail can hold to any longer?

Oh dear I'm in trouble because I do believe there was an High tea.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.04.21 10:57

crusader wrote:She still believes, as Goncalo Amaral has done up to now (but wait for his book!) that Madeleine was at that alleged high tea at 5pm-6pm on Thursday 3 May and then suffered a death, perhaps violent, in the apartment after 6pm. Surely that is a scenario that no-one who has studied this case in detail can hold to any longer?

Oh dear I'm in trouble because I do believe there was an High tea.

It is always very helpful when people are clear about where they stand, so thank you for that @crusader

I assure you that you are not in any trouble, crusader, but your response does lead me to ask you these further questions, which perhaps you can answer at your convenience:

1. What time do you say the high tea started and ended?

2. In particular, what time do you say that each of the following arrived at the high tea: Cat Baker, Madeleine, the twins, Gerry McCann?

3. Do you suggest that anyone else was present at the high tea, if so, who else do you think was there?

4. Have you read all the accounts of those who describe the high tea? If so, how do you explain each of the multiple discrepancies in the accounts of Cat Baker, Kate McCann, Gerry McCann and Charlotte Pennington?

5. Do you think it is a truthful account ('madeleine', hard copy, pp. 66-67) that Madeleine was 'so pale and worn out' when Kate saw her Madeleine first 'at 5.30pm', and that 'the five of us' went back to the apartment with Kate 'carrying Madeleine'? Is it really credible that Kate, rather than Gerry, was carrying Madeleine?

6. Do you say that there was a 'like' high tea at the Tapas bar every other day of the week? If so, please, where do you find the evidence for that?

Thanks. Will reply in detail re Pamela Fenn hopefully today or tomorrow.

by **crusader** 09.04.21 11:13

@ TonyBennett

No prob, it's great to be able to explain what I think.

by Guest 09.04.21 12:25

ShiningInLuz wrote:Pat Brown's 5 Main Clues were these. In her view obviously.

1 No PHYSICAL evidence of abduction.

2 No CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of abduction.

3 Dog evidence. Eddie and Keela alerts. Particularly behind the sofa.

4 Odd behaviour of the McCanns

5 Kate could sleep after a few days (i.e. she knew what had happened).

To repeat, these are Pat Brown's views in 5 Main Points.

Thank you for that brief summary ShiningInLuz - you've saved a further 90 minutes of my life, for which I'm eternally grateful.

hat

by Guest 09.04.21 12:47

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.

Indeed, the burglar must have been a spiderman (oooh another new suspect to consider). A tabloid report at the time of the 18th August 2007 media blitz, just two days prior to Pamela Fenn giving her witness statement, had this to say..

In a new development, a British expat has come forward with dramatic new evidence.

Pamela Fenn said a man broke into her flat above the McCanns' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, on the Algarve, just weeks before Madeleine disappeared.

There was no sign of a break-in and it is thought the intruder may have had a key.

Mrs Fenn, who is in her 70s, found the man scrambling out of the window and tried to grab his ankle. But he escaped.

The Mirror

Pat Brown: The 5 Main Clues in the Madeleine McCann Case - Page 4 Scre1448

by Guest 09.04.21 13:10

As I say, the subject of Pamela Fenn and her niece has been discussed extensively here on CMOMM in the past.

One thing that stands out above all else, at least in my view, Pamela Fenn did not give a witness statement until 20th August 2007.

According to Pamela Fenn's witness statement, she was a home on the night of 3rd May 2007, she goes into considerable detail about what she saw and heard.

Contrary to rumours spread abroad about incompetence in the Portuguese investigation, they did conduct house to house calls at the commencement of their investigation, in line with routine policing. It stands to reason, the first port of call would be a door to door check in the apartment block where the McCann family was accommodated. The police would be more than interested in locating witnesses in the environs that might help their investigation.

Even if you assume Pamela Fenn was not at home during the house calls, I would expect - knowing the apartment above 5a to be occupied, the police would have made a return visit to question the occupant. As there is no record of an interview recorded in the PJ files, it can be reasonably concluded that Pamela Fenn had nothing to say on that occasion. This runs counter to her witness statement.

Again if you assume she was out, even if the police didn't make a return call to speak to her, surely she would have realised that any information she could give, like the information in her statement, would be of assistance to police inquiries into the disappearance of a three year old child? Why didn't she put herself forward at the time, why wait until 20th August to make a statement to the police.

Withholding potentially important evidence from a police investigation ..... perverting the course of justice .... perjury?

It doesn't look good.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.04.21 15:20

Verdi wrote:One thing that stands out above all else, at least in my view, Pamela Fenn did not give a witness statement until 20th August 2007.

Yes, agreed, that is a stand-out fact.

But @Verdi it was coupled with a series of reports in the British press during the three days before Mrs Fenn went to the police on Thursday 20 August 2007. A lot of those reports have disappeared from the net now, but here's one I found from the Evening Standard dated the day before, 19 August:

Police will speak again in the coming days to Pamela Fenn, 73, who owns an apartment above the one where Madeleine was sleeping with her brother and sister, two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie. Madeleine was six days short of her fourth birthday when she vanished. Mrs Fenn claims to have disturbed an intruder in her flat a few weeks earlier, scaring him off.

Her niece will also give a new statement to police, having spotted a suspicious man hanging around the apartment block on the night Madeleine vanished. It has been suggested the intruder may have had a key to the flat and let himself in. A similar claim is being made about a burglary at another apartment.

It is thought Mrs Fenn will make a formal statement to police today at the headquarters in Portimao, not far from Praia da Luz. Her niece, who has not been named, has also given a statement to British police in which her description of the suspect matches that given to police by a friend of Gerry and Kate McCann who was dining with them on the night.

The Evening Standard and all the other British newspapers who covered this story between 17 & 19 August must have been comprehensively briefed beforehand with all these details. The finger of suspicion points unerringly to Clarence Mitchell. He must have known exactly what Pamela Fenn was going to tell the PJ. So much so, that I think it probable that she took with her a written note which others prepared for her. That would explain why she was able to say "it's all rubbish" later. Because it was all rubbish!

Also, remember the context. In early August, Martin Grime's dogs went to Portugal. The following 10 days the British press was full of stories of corpse scent and blood being found in the McCanns' holiday flat. The whole McCann Team must have been desperate to change the narrative. What better than two lurid stories about a child wailing for 75 minutes on the Tuesday (thus 'proving' that Madeleine was alive then), and of a dramatic burglary attempt with 82-year-old Mrs Fenn leaping out of her chair and nearly catching the burglar by the ankle as he jumped out of her first-floor window to the concrete floor below?

Note @Verdi... While delaying her statement for 3.5 months is definitely a major red flag, to my mind the core issue about Mrs Fenn's statements is the combination of a mass of contradictions in them and the extreme improbability of either of the two scenarios: (a) hearing a child crying ever louder for 75 minutes and doing nothing and (b) leaping to try and catch the burglar by the ankle - when according to the narrative he had 'entered using a key'. To me her statement absolutely does not have the 'ring of truth'

by Guest 09.04.21 15:45

Tony wrote:
But @Verdi it was coupled with a series of reports in the British press during the three days before Mrs Fenn went to the police on Thursday 20 August 2007. A lot of those reports have disappeared from the net now, but here's one I found from the Evening Standard dated the day before, 19 August:

Posted up-page..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17087p50-pat-brown-the-5-main-clues-in-the-madeleine-mccann-case#434565

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17087p75-pat-brown-the-5-main-clues-in-the-madeleine-mccann-case#434601

by **crusader** 09.04.21 16:54

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?

My opinion is the Smith family did see a man carrying a blond girl, didn't think anything about it at the time .
There was nothing unusual about it

6 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).

Just to be clear before I answer the questions.
I believe madeleine was alive and well until the evening of 3rd May.

I believe she was a much loved daughter and she died as the result of an accident.

There is no way of telling who was carrying a child the Smith family saw, unless someone comes forward
( independent of the police) and admits it was him.I say independent of the police, if that is the right term, because there is no way I believe Tannerman was Julian Totman for obvious reasons.

It's quite possible it wasn't Gerry the Smith's saw, there is no way of knowing who it was.

by **Jill Havern** 09.04.21 17:24

If Madeleine was alive and well until the evening of May 3rd - why are there no photos of her (or the twins) during the week (other than the dubious tennis balls photo), and why did they need to forge the Last Photo to make it appear as though she was alive and well on May 3rd?

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 17:43

Why was THURSDAY chosen as the day that the ‘Abduction’ was to be revealed?

Regardless of which Date and Time she expired for reasons unknown.

Why wait so long if it happened so much earlier? To what advantage?

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Loss of appetite perhaps?

by **crusader** 09.04.21 17:46

That is a very good question Jill and one only the McCann's can answer. I would love to know and if they were asked by the PJ or operation Grange

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 18:51

Silentscope wrote:Why was THURSDAY chosen as the day that the ‘Abduction’ was to be revealed?

Regardless of which Date and Time she expired for reasons unknown.

Why wait so long if it happened so much earlier? To what advantage?

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Loss of appetite perhaps?

No loss of appetite.

From Monday onwards the McCanns had breakfast in their own apartment, or so they claim. The certainly fed the twins in the apartment but it is unclear whether they had breakfast elsewhere later in the mornings.

Cat Baker said in her statement (shall have to locate it) that she didn't see the McCanns until breakfast time, IIRC, on the Friday morning.

Why, if they were not eating out before Thursday, did they start eating out after Thursday? Not wanting to be seen as a family of four perhaps?

Edited: It was Saturday, not Friday

This is an extract from the statement of the nanny who was so traumatised that she couldn't function, couldn't sleep, couldn't eat.

"I did not see Kate or Gerry that night. The next time I saw them was on Saturday at breakfast, as on Friday I spent most of the morning with the Portuguese police giving a statement. On Saturday I was next to the tapas Bar zone when Gerry and Kate appeared. They were still agitated and anxious for news."

P.J. POLICE FILES: CAT TEREASA SISILE BAKER ROGATORY (mccannpjfiles.co.uk)

by Doug D 09.04.21 19:09

Silentscope:

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Friday night the Tapas was booked out for the tennis club, so most of them would have been eating there again, although it was only booked for 12.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 19:45

Doug D wrote:Silentscope:

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Friday night the Tapas was booked out for the tennis club, so most of them would have been eating there again, although it was only booked for 12.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

My point is that if they block - booked the Tapas bar as a result of something happening to Madeleine early in the Holiday, why would they NOT have booked it for Friday as well?

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 19:57

Doug D wrote:Silentscope:

Where were they planning to eat on Friday?

No booking made in the Tapas for them then.

Friday night the Tapas was booked out for the tennis club, so most of them would have been eating there again, although it was only booked for 12.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm

Now that's an interesting point.

A pre-planned change of behaviour? So they pre-booked the Tapas to see them through to Thursday but didn't require it after?

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 20:21

Either the Restaurant was going to be too full with other witnesses, who would probably all want to help with searching the area.

Or Friday was not advantageous to the plan for some other reason.

Unless someone has another suggestion?

by **crusader** 09.04.21 20:27

Also no table 211 after the 3rd.

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 20:34

Silentscope wrote:Either the Restaurant was going to be too full with other witnesses, who would probably all want to help with searching the area.

Or Friday was not advantageous to the plan for some other reason.

Unless someone has another suggestion?

If they had pre-booked the Tapas for the week, and the reasons that they had claimed, I would imagine that on Friday, the last day of the holiday, they would definitely want to eat together. Where else were they planning to eat that would have been close to the children?

by **Silentscope** 09.04.21 21:17

Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

by **Jill Havern** 09.04.21 21:27

Silentscope wrote:Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

If they didn't book anything, surely it would look even more suspicious than it already did?

They had to keep up the pretence.

by **sharonl** 09.04.21 21:29

Silentscope wrote:Assuming they knew that they were going to be ‘GRILLED ALL NIGHT’ by the PJ once the alarm had been raised, why book anything?

Exactly. They knew on Sunday that they only needed to pre-book the Tapas until Thursday.

by Doug D 09.04.21 22:48

Seem to be missing the point. The MW tennis group had their usual end of week booking for the Tapas on Friday as it was the last night for many of the weeks holidaymakers so most of the T9 would be there anyway. Tennis group booked for 12, presumably as the norm, but no doubt could accommodate a few more depending on the number of players that week who were interested.

by **crusader** 09.04.21 23:14

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.

1 The Smiths statements did indeed vary. If they were part of any cover-up I think they would have stuck to the same story. Martin Smith first named Gerry as the man he saw in a 20/9/07 statement.

2. He didn't appear to lower his head according to Peter Smith.
Martin Smith said in his 30/1/08 statement, said it was the way Gerry turned his head down which was similar to the way the individual did on 3/5/07, I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane.

3. He knew the man they saw not Robert Murat because he knew him by sight.
He said in his 30/1/08 statement , he has been contacted by Brian Kennedy to take part in a photo fit exercise, he said he has given no stories or helped in any photo fits.

4. Aoife said she didn't see the girls face, she appeared to be sleeping.
Peter said her eyes were closed.
Martin said her eyes were closed.

by **crusader** 09.04.21 23:33

5. Martin Smith said he had given no stories in his 30/1/08 statement.

6. Martin was heard saying " I thought they were Father and Daughter so I wasn't suspicious. All other media.

7. The statement of Peter. All others media,