Re: BRICK Reviews

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 14:08

pinkgladioli wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
crusader wrote:I think something is being misunderstood.
pinkgladioli made a perfectly reasonable comment, she was quoting me regards the "lightbulb moment".
That was my interpretation, the Smith's never said "lightbulb moment".

I think it would be a good thing to read all the recent comments in the thread before commenting so as to avoid any confusion.

I was answering to "I just can’t fathom why anyone in this situation could possibly wait nearly two weeks". I should have suppressed the rest of the sentence, sorry !
Apologies as I don’t understand what you are meaning please explain thank you

A father carrying his child in the street, whereas many parents pick up their child from the night crèche and carry it back home, is no news. At least, that's what Martin S was told when he phoned the police to talk about Smithman. However, the person MS spoke to mentioned it (no note in the PJFiles) and GA thought that Smithman might be RM who had just been made arguido. That's why he brought in three members of the S family. MS didn't mention RM in his (open) statement, what he says about him is an answer to a question.

by **PeterMac** 03.09.24 14:13

"My last and final word on the McCann’s, As you know I live on a small farm just outside Luz three months of the year. I have lived here for 25 years. I arrived in Luz, a week after Maddie vanished and I was here (where I am now) for a three month sabbatical.

I loved the whole McCann experience. On my first day of my sabbatical, I walked into town with my son. It’s a long walk but the weather was beautiful. We wandered down to the beach and the first person we bumped into (literally) was Gerry McCann, it was 9.30am and eight days after her dissapearance, he was standing in his swimmers, a phone in one hand and slugging San Miguel beer in the other, I couldn’t believe it. His twins were playing games with his sister Philomena, who was sporting a Celtic top. We then went up to the Baptists’s supermarket where we encountered Kate who was giggling with a friend and laughing at our oddly shaped and locally produced tomatoes.
The body language was odd to say the least to say the least and during the course of the next three months I bumped into them regularly in the local pubs (Kelly’s or The Bull) or the beach

John James site blog (Scottish football blog)
Posted by Jon Maddie case files "

HOGWASH.
Phat Philomena did not arrive until 23rd 3 weeks after the 'event'm the dame day GM returned from the UK with Mitchell
She probably brought the memory stick with the doctored Pool Photo on it, which allowed Mitchell to send it to the APF on 23rd and for it to be published on 24th

by crusader 03.09.24 14:17

Nina's not the only one seeing new things today.
I wonder if it was Patricia Cameron he saw?

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 14:32

AnneCGuedes wrote:

A father carrying his child in the street, whereas many parents pick up their child from the night crèche and carry it back home, is no news. At least, that's what Martin S was told when he phoned the police to talk about Smithman. However, the person MS spoke to mentioned it (no note in the PJFiles) and GA thought that Smithman might be RM who had just been made arguido. That's why he brought in three members of the S family. MS didn't mention RM in his (open) statement, what he says about him is an answer to a question.

Martin Smith statement:

"As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season."

At the bottom of the statement:

"He reads and finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs together with the interpreter."

Martin Smith said it was a common sight.

by pinkgladioli 03.09.24 14:49

crusader wrote:Nina's not the only one seeing new things today.
I wonder if it was Patricia Cameron he saw?

She didn’t arrive until the 5th May

by crusader 03.09.24 14:52

Thanks to Anne Guedes we now know,( well I didn't know but some might have done) that Martin Smith did contact the police about what he saw, but we don't know when do we? only to be fobbed off and told that was not news.
It was G Amaral who called in the Smith family to make statements on the 26th May.
He was definitely on the ball wasn't he.

by crusader 03.09.24 14:58

pinkgladioli said
She didn’t arrive until the 5th May

That's right, Jon? the poster said he arrived in Praia da Luz a week after Madeleine went missing, P. Cameron would have already been there.

by pinkgladioli 03.09.24 15:08

Apologies I thought you were relating to the post re Michaela

Yes could possibly be Patricia in the c’mon the hoops top
I’m still chuckling at the vision of Phat Philo wearing one

by Cake Lover 03.09.24 17:10

What if, and it's a huge what if - I don't believe it myself - Madeleine had been secreted before The McCann's decided an 'abductor' needed to be seen? G McCann could walk about carrying something constructed to resemble a small child, such as a beach towel, or a blanket. Or he could be toting a bag? If an explanation were required all he had to say was 'I'm taking these towels/blankets back'. Back where doesn't matter. He could drop his bundle anywhere - in a bin, on the beach. He could be carrying out a double bluff. Or something. My imagination is wild.

by Nina 03.09.24 17:22

Cake Lover wrote:What if, and it's a huge what if - I don't believe it myself - Madeleine had been secreted before The McCann's decided an 'abductor' needed to be seen? G McCann could walk about carrying something constructed to resemble a small child, such as a beach towel, or a blanket. Or he could be toting a bag? If an explanation were required all he had to say was 'I'm taking these towels/blankets back'. Back where doesn't matter. He could drop his bundle anywhere - in a bin, on the beach. He could be carrying out a double bluff. Or something. My imagination is wild.

I could certainly go with the pantomime being as believable as they could make it. Tannerman was part of it imo as were the whooshing curtains and the open window. So a sighting of a man carrying a shape down towards the beach area could be just another layer of the story. It was mostly a dark route though with a lot of open areas of scrub and boarded up properties so why that route. There was a quicker way down to the main beach area or was that too public? I am getting confused now

by crusader 03.09.24 17:24

And if it was the day before, it could even have been during the day, nobody would take any notice, even after Madeleine disappeared, nobody would link it to that night.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 17:30

crusader wrote:Thanks to Anne Guedes we now know,( well I didn't know but some might have done) that Martin Smith did contact the police about what he saw, but we don't know when do we? only to be fobbed off and told that was not news.
It was G Amaral who called in the Smith family to make statements on the 26th May.
He was definitely on the ball wasn't he.

I'd like to know how Anne knows.

When is important.

Evidence of fobbing off?

Smith said in his statement (quoted above) that what he saw was normal and common.

He read his statement and signed it.

by Justice for Maddie 03.09.24 17:31

I also wonder why the McCanns changed their rountine on Monday, April 30. Was Maddie already sick or something like that (perhaps from Calpol)?

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 17:32

crusader wrote:Thanks to Anne Guedes we now know,( well I didn't know but some might have done) that Martin Smith did contact the police about what he saw, but we don't know when do we? only to be fobbed off and told that was not news.
It was G Amaral who called in the Smith family to make statements on the 26th May.
He was definitely on the ball wasn't he.

It was Peter (who hardly looked at Smithman because he was worried about his wife) who drew the attention of the others before mid-May. The S family compared memories and Martin called the PJ who advised to call the Gardaï. Perhaps the Gardaï called the LC that called the PJ ?
On 7 May, at a press conference, the PJ declared that they refused to confirm the kidnapping that the MCs were continually claiming, more or less supported by the ambassador.
https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/pais/pj-recusa-confirmar-que-madeleine-foi-raptada_n44096
In spite of it, M is no more missing but abducted.
The PJ only declares that they are at work, while team MC is extremely active everywhere.
RM was made an arguido on May 15.
On 26 May, G read out a prepared statement welcoming the fact that the police, under pressure from the British ambassador, had launched an appeal for witnesses concerning a man seen carrying what could be a child on the night of May 3. "Because they were sure that this was linked to Madeleine's abduction, he asked the public if the man had been seen elsewhere with the child, in which direction he was going, if he had a motorbike".
It's funny that G should make this speech on the very day that three independent witnesses report another child carrier (this time, the child is in every way comparable to M). It is implausible that the MCs were not informed of this through Ricardo Paiva or any of the British officers who were in PdL. Yet they would not breathe a word about it until two years later.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 17:32

Justice for Maddie wrote:I also wonder why the McCanns changed their rountine on Monday, April 30. Was Maddie already sick or something like that (perhaps from Calpool)?

It wasn't a routine.

They had only been there a day and a bit.

by Justice for Maddie 03.09.24 17:38

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Justice for Maddie wrote:I also wonder why the McCanns changed their rountine on Monday, April 30. Was Maddie already sick or something like that (perhaps from Calpool)?
It wasn't a routine.

They had only been there a day and a bit.

But they usually had breakfast at the restaurant, right? But suddenly they stayed in their apartment.

by crusader 03.09.24 17:38

Bluebag wrote
I'd like to know how Anne knows.

So would I, but she is very knowledgeable about a lot of things, so I've no reason to doubt her, I'm sure she will clarify.

Fobbing off, my words not Anne's.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 17:47

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:

A father carrying his child in the street, whereas many parents pick up their child from the night crèche and carry it back home, is no news. At least, that's what Martin S was told when he phoned the police to talk about Smithman. However, the person MS spoke to mentioned it (no note in the PJFiles) and GA thought that Smithman might be RM who had just been made arguido. That's why he brought in three members of the S family. MS didn't mention RM in his (open) statement, what he says about him is an answer to a question.

Martin Smith statement:

"As he reached this artery, he saw an individual carrying a child, who walked normally and fitted in perfectly in that area, in that it is common to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season."

At the bottom of the statement:

"He reads and finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs together with the interpreter."

Martin Smith said it was a common sight.

I wonder whose translation you chose... Because the official one is : "As he reached this artery, he crossed an individual holding a child. He notes that it is normal to see people carrying children, especially during the holiday season. This individual was walking the downward path, in the opposite direction. He is not aware where this person was headed. He only saw him as they passed each other. He assumed it was a father and daughter, not raising any suspicion.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 17:50

McCann files.

Does it matter? He said it was normal.

How do you know he was fobbed off by the police earlier?

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 17:52

Actually my quote is directly from the link you posted Anne.

by pinkgladioli 03.09.24 17:57

They say every day is a school day for me any way!

The McC’s have a member of their family who happened to be a reporter for the Sun newspaper how convenient for them and perfect time to arrive!
reporting from Portugal and PDL from 31 May

Headline title = Maddie Who?
Mark Sweeney in Portugal
5 June 2007
The Sun (Scotland)

by crusader 03.09.24 18:00

This is what Anne wrote.
A father carrying his child in the street, whereas many parents pick up their child from the night crèche and carry it back home, is no news. At least, that's what Martin S was told when he phoned the police to talk about Smithman.

It was me who cut it short and said fobbed off.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 18:19

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Actually my quote is directly from the link you posted Anne.

Sorry, you're very right. I had corrected (on my blog) the translation made by hispanophone Ines. Because the meaning is not that MS was carrying the child normally but that it was normal for a father to carry his child in a street. "normal" is related to the presence of child carrier, no to the way of carrying.

But the anomaly is further, try to find it !

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 20:55

I don't care how you interpret Smith about what he may or may not have said about an anomaly... the actual pictures speak for themselves.

There is no actual anomaly in real life.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 20:56

crusader wrote:This is what Anne wrote.
A father carrying his child in the street, whereas many parents pick up their child from the night crèche and carry it back home, is no news. At least, that's what Martin S was told when he phoned the police to talk about Smithman.

It was me who cut it short and said fobbed off.

I know.

You summed it up nicely.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 21:12

Bluebagthepirate wrote:I don't care how you interpret Smith about what he may or may not have said about an anomaly... the actual pictures speak for themselves.

There is no actual anomaly in real life.

If a picture is all that counts, then it's a pity that no picture exists of what the 9 members of the S family saw on May 3 around 22:00. We only have their words, i.e nothing !

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 21:15

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:I don't care how you interpret Smith about what he may or may not have said about an anomaly... the actual pictures speak for themselves.

There is no actual anomaly in real life.

If a picture is all that counts, then it's a pity that no picture exists of what the 9 members of the S family saw on May 3 around 22:00. We only have their words, i.e nothing !

?

Can you show us the anomaly from the actual pictures?

While you're there, can you tell us how you know Smith was fobbed off by the Police?

And when?

Not being funny, just trying to keep it real.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 21:26

It's not personal Anne, I hope we can discuss this without feelings coming into it.

by AnneCGuedes 03.09.24 21:32

I only know what MS said. He wasn't received like a whistle blower and, as his whole family thought the child looked very much like Madeleine, he was disappointed at the reaction, or rather lack of reaction.
Unlike you, I do care.
I never said there was an anomaly in the pic you insist refering to as evidence. MS and Mary S watched a television coverage, ie 24 images/s.

by Bluebagthepirate 03.09.24 21:44

AnneCGuedes wrote:I only know what MS said. He wasn't received like a whistle blower and, as his whole family thought the child looked very much like Madeleine, he was disappointed at the reaction, or rather lack of reaction.

What did he say and when?