Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

by Guest Wed 22 Feb - 5:08

Interesting tweets from lime_harry who is the journalist publishing the interview with Pat on 2th Feb ......

Journalist on weekly newspaper in the Algarve, very interested in the McCann story and the truth.

Lagos, Algarve, Portugal

lime_harry@lime_harryReply
Retweet

@eckieneylon Interview with PatB to be published on Thursday 24 Feb on http://www.algarve123.com, if you are interested

jackie neylon@jackieneylon

@justice4maddie @JillyCL @zante03 Yes Pat has done much more.Using her own time and money for an unknown child and being abused for doing so

lime_harry@lime_harry

@jackieneylon @justice4maddie @JillyCL @zante03 PatB is an incredibly honest woman trying to safeguard the handling of missing person cases

More here.........

http://twitter.com/#!/lime_harry

by Guest Wed 22 Feb - 5:13

candyfloss wrote:Interesting tweets from lime_harry who is the journalist publishing the interview with Pat on 2th Feb ......

Journalist on weekly newspaper in the Algarve, very interested in the McCann story and the truth.

Lagos, Algarve, Portugal

lime_harry@lime_harryReply
Retweet

@eckieneylon Interview with PatB to be published on Thursday 24 Feb on http://www.algarve123.com, if you are interested

jackie neylon@jackieneylon

@justice4maddie @JillyCL @zante03 Yes Pat has done much more.Using her own time and money for an unknown child and being abused for doing so

lime_harry@lime_harry

@jackieneylon @justice4maddie @JillyCL @zante03 PatB is an incredibly honest woman trying to safeguard the handling of missing person cases

More here.........

http://twitter.com/#!/lime_harry

Thursday the 23 or Friday 24 ? Since Thursday 24 do not exist this year smilie

by Guest Thu 23 Feb - 9:31

Article in Algarve 123 is posted but need a subscription to view it all - anyone have a sub?

Pat Brown
American Criminal Profiler probes McCann mystery

She ar rived in Lis bon from Wash ing ton, D.C wheel ing a travel-worn suit case and car ry ing a metal de tector. In side her suitcase, she’d packed a soil probe and a spade. Pat Brown - Criminal Pro filer, TV com ment ator and au thor - was on a mis sion. As so cial net work ing sites buzzed with the news – split between those that wished her well, and those that vo ci fer ously didn’t – Brown was un deterred. “This has noth ing to do with […] »

by Cheshire Cat Thu 23 Feb - 11:33

Stewie wrote:Article in Algarve 123 is posted but need a subscription to view it all - anyone have a sub?

Pat Brown
American Criminal Profiler probes McCann mystery

She ar rived in Lis bon from Wash ing ton, D.C wheel ing a travel-worn suit case and car ry ing a metal de tector. In side her suitcase, she’d packed a soil probe and a spade. Pat Brown - Criminal Pro filer, TV com ment ator and au thor - was on a mis sion. As so cial net work ing sites buzzed with the news – split between those that wished her well, and those that vo ci fer ously didn’t – Brown was un deterred. “This has noth ing to do with […] »

Little bit more....

So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

“If the cadaver dogs were right” (brought in three months after Madeleine went missing, and which reacted positively to the possibility that a dead body had lain in the apartment) “then there was no abduction”.

And for those two details to be established, we’re back to the reasoning of former police officer in charge of the case, Gonçalo Amaral: there has to be a reconstruction of that fateful night of 3rd May 2007 – using all parties involved.

“But so far as we know, that doesn’t look like happening any day soon!” Brown shakes her head. “I honestly don’t know what the Metropolitan Police are doing with their current review of the case - which is costing millions of pounds. As far as I can see, they haven’t started where they should have started – with crime scene reconstruction.

“That’s where there’s the best crack at getting to the truth!”

by rainbow-fairy Thu 23 Feb - 17:26

From the Algarve 123 article -
"So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

I'm afraid to say I think Pat's 'burden of proof' is ridiculously low. I don't see how proving Gerry was at the table proves an abduction? Seems to me she has made a couple of fatal assumptions;
1)The Smith sighting is genuine,
2)Correct that it was Gerry
3)The carried child was Madeleine

If all points above were 100% verified, then yes, I'd agree with her but how could you possibly verify them?
What does 'Gerry at dinner Table' prove?
A: Nothing! Maddie could've been moved by any of the other Tapas, person unknown to us but not the T9, or maybe (and most likely, IMO) Maddie was already in another location by the night of the 3rd!
I've done my best to explain my thinking here but I've only just woken up, so if I've made a big muck-up please put me right!
I admire Pat, greatly, but tbh if these are her conclusions then I'm very disappointed...

by **tigger** Thu 23 Feb - 18:16

RF and RD:
Quite worrying. I don't agree with Pat's conclusion at all.
1. The Tapas would give him any alibi and probably have done so.
2. The waiters at the Tapas have given conflicting statements.
3. Even though the Tapas tried to give him full cover, there are many inconsistencies in their statements.
Imo it can never be proved Gerry was at the table between those 9.30 and 10.00.

We do have: the Smiths' sighting and description - including the beige,button trousers.
We do have photographs of the 5a crime scene; one with a pair of beige trousers thrown on the bed (and a later photograph with G wearing them)
This tells me that G came back to 5a and changed his clothes - the dark top and the trousers - in a hurry.
The following crime scene photos do not have the trousers on the bed.

So one could surmise that: Gerry did his abduction run but was unfortunate in being seen by a group of 8/9 people all around him - instead of on one side of the road. He must have expected the Smiths' to come forward the following day.
Still, the sensible thing was to change into clothes other than those the 'abductor' was seen in. Jane Tanner also gave a description of the same type of clothes so that took care of it being the same abductor. The T7 took care of his alibi at the table. He was safe enough.

Besides, it still doesn't explain the cadaver scent, the blood, the car and a whole lot of other facts.

by Cheshire Cat Thu 23 Feb - 18:24

rainbow-fairy wrote:From the Algarve 123 article -
"So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

I'm afraid to say I think Pat's 'burden of proof' is ridiculously low. I don't see how proving Gerry was at the table proves an abduction? Seems to me she has made a couple of fatal assumptions;
1)The Smith sighting is genuine,
2)Correct that it was Gerry
3)The carried child was Madeleine

If all points above were 100% verified, then yes, I'd agree with her but how could you possibly verify them?
What does 'Gerry at dinner Table' prove?
A: Nothing! Maddie could've been moved by any of the other Tapas, person unknown to us but not the T9, or maybe (and most likely, IMO) Maddie was already in another location by the night of the 3rd!
I've done my best to explain my thinking here but I've only just woken up, so if I've made a big muck-up please put me right!
I admire Pat, greatly, but tbh if these are her conclusions then I'm very disappointed...

So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

“If the cadaver dogs were right” (brought in three months after Madeleine went missing, and which reacted positively to the possibility that a dead body had lain in the apartment) “then there was no abduction”.

And for those two details to be established, we’re back to the reasoning of former police officer in charge of the case, Gonçalo Amaral: there has to be a reconstruction of that fateful night of 3rd May 2007 – using all parties involved.

Pat gives two conditions - she also says that the Cadaver dogs would need to be wrong for there to be an abduction. Remember Pat has met with Amaral where I am sure the Smith sighting would have been discussed. I do believe that the Smith sighting was of Gerry McCann and it is vital to the McCann's to persuade sceptics that it was not G that the Smiths saw. Of course there are McCann sceptics who do not believe it was Gerry that Mr Smith saw. I have listened to their argument and it is reasoned and logical but I continue to believe it was Gerry that the Smiths saw.

by **PeterMac** Thu 23 Feb - 18:36

Full text

Pat Brown
American Criminal Profiler probes McCann mystery
She arrived in Lisbon from Washington, D.C wheeling a travel-worn suitcase and carrying a metal detector. Inside her suitcase, she’d packed a soil probe and a spade. Pat Brown - Criminal Profiler, TV commentator and author - was on a mission. As social networking sites buzzed with the news – split between those that wished her well, and those that vociferously didn’t – Brown was undeterred. “This has nothing to do with self-publicity. I am simply trying to get to the truth”. We caught up with her when Brown arrived in the Algarve after meetings in the capital with Gonçalo Amaral and others who have put their reputations on the line in an attempt to solve the millennium’s greatest mystery.

One of the first questions we asked was why an American criminal profiler and TV personality felt the need cross the Atlantic to Portugal to investigate a missing person’s case that was almost five years old?
“Two reasons,” she told us. “One is that I have always been passionately involved in a search for the truth. It’s not something that makes me popular, but it’s something I care about above my own reputation as this case threatens to prejudice the way missing person’s cases are handled.
“We have a situation here where there are two parents who have refused to cooperate fully with a police investigation – who have refused to answer questions, who have changed their stories and fled from jurisdiction – but who have then taken their story - in the way they want us to believe it - to the media, asking people to donate money to fund a search for a child who, statistically-speaking, is almost certainly dead!
“I can understand bereaved parents doing some crazy things, but never have I seen parents like this before! Their actions have opened the door to speculation.
“My other reason is to show support for Gonçalo Amaral and freedom of speech”. Amaral faces trial for defamation of the McCanns over the publication of his book, “The Truth of the Lie” in which he maintains that three-year-old Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a on the night of May 3rd 2007. His trial was originally set for February 9th -10th, but postponed. Brown decided to take advantage of her booked flight to see if she could learn anything new by visiting the crime scene.
And did she?
“Yes, absolutely. I discovered more about the situation on the street; I learnt about the locks on the doors and how they work; how the shutter and window would be impossible to open from the outside; about the kind of terrain here – but my line of thought has remained the same: there are two simple answers to this crime.
“The simplest answer is that Madeleine was abducted by a local predator (in which case she would almost certainly have been killed within two to three hours) – and the second simplest answer is that she died in a tragic accident and her body was disposed of.
“To eliminate the second simplest answer, we have to establish without doubt that there was an abduction – and that hasn’t happened”.
Does she believe, like Gonçalo Amaral, that what’s needed is a reconstruction of the night Madeleine went missing?
“Hell yes! And that’s what they have consistently refused to go along with – all of them: the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas group! The McCanns particularly have been their own worst enemies. They could provide answers in a number of ways: by taking part in a reconstruction, by submitting to polygraph testing. You see, they have to be eliminated in order for the first simplest answer to be the highest probability!
“Another aspect that truly bothers me is the promotion of mythology. Sex rings have become the new bogeyman. Every parent has been made to fear that their child could be grabbed by a sex ring – but sex rings do not operate in hotel complexes!
If a sex ring wants a child, it grabs one off the streets in some poor neighbourhood. It doesn’t snatch a middle-class child from its bed while on holiday, particularly when - if the stories we’re led to believe are true - all the parents were jumping up and down from their dinner table every 15 minutes to check on their children! Any abductor would be lying in wait thinking “when the heck am I going to get a chance to break into an apartment!” Brown’s experience of profiling began when she was already in her 40s and had been working as a sign language interpreter on hospital trauma wards for over a decade. During those years she “saw everything”: gunshot wounds, stab and rape casualties, victims and villains. The experience taught her a lot about life, crime and circumstance – and then she found herself having rented a room for four weeks to a man she believed should have been “a person-of-interest” in a brutal sexual homicide. This unsettling experience was the start of her interest in profiling and how homicide cases are handled. It took six years for the police to bring the man in for questioning and declare him a suspect in the murder – and it led to Brown specialising in a profession that invariably finds itself called in way too late.
“One of my ambitions is to make profilers a prerequisite on all police forces,” she told us. “We need to be called in right at the beginning. Crime scenes need better handling”.
“If parents were separated when police first arrived on the scene, along with everyone else involved, it would be much easier to verify everyone’s stories - and a true timeline could be established.
“In this case, the McCanns and their friends were given days to confer with each other. The result is that in order to look better maybe, or to explain things that are embarrassing, they may have screwed up the timeline to the extent that they look guilty. Or, if the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter, they had a chance to get their stories straight”.
So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.
“If the cadaver dogs were right” (brought in three months after Madeleine went missing, and which reacted positively to the possibility that a dead body had lain in the apartment) “then there was no abduction”.
And for those two details to be established, we’re back to the reasoning of former police officer in charge of the case, Gonçalo Amaral: there has to be a reconstruction of that fateful night of 3rd May 2007 – using all parties involved.
“But so far as we know, that doesn’t look like happening any day soon!” Brown shakes her head. “I honestly don’t know what the Metropolitan Police are doing with their current review of the case - which is costing millions of pounds. As far as I can see, they haven’t started where they should have started – with crime scene reconstruction.
“That’s where there’s the best crack at getting to the truth!”

by rainbow-fairy Thu 23 Feb - 18:43

Cheshire Cat wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:From the Algarve 123 article -
"So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

I'm afraid to say I think Pat's 'burden of proof' is ridiculously low. I don't see how proving Gerry was at the table proves an abduction? Seems to me she has made a couple of fatal assumptions;
1)The Smith sighting is genuine,
2)Correct that it was Gerry
3)The carried child was Madeleine

If all points above were 100% verified, then yes, I'd agree with her but how could you possibly verify them?
What does 'Gerry at dinner Table' prove?
A: Nothing! Maddie could've been moved by any of the other Tapas, person unknown to us but not the T9, or maybe (and most likely, IMO) Maddie was already in another location by the night of the 3rd!
I've done my best to explain my thinking here but I've only just woken up, so if I've made a big muck-up please put me right!
I admire Pat, greatly, but tbh if these are her conclusions then I'm very disappointed...

So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

“If the cadaver dogs were right” (brought in three months after Madeleine went missing, and which reacted positively to the possibility that a dead body had lain in the apartment) “then there was no abduction”.

And for those two details to be established, we’re back to the reasoning of former police officer in charge of the case, Gonçalo Amaral: there has to be a reconstruction of that fateful night of 3rd May 2007 – using all parties involved.

Pat gives two conditions - she also says that the Cadaver dogs would need to be wrong for there to be an abduction. Remember Pat has met with Amaral where I am sure the Smith sighting would have been discussed. I do believe that the Smith sighting was of Gerry McCann and it is vital to the McCann's to persuade sceptics that it was not G that the Smiths saw. Of course there are McCann sceptics who do not believe it was Gerry that Mr Smith saw. I have listened to their argument and it is reasoned and logical but I continue to believe it was Gerry that the Smiths saw.

Cheshire Cat, I am with you re the Smith sighting. 100% genuine, and 100% GMcC IMO. I've posted elsewhere here why I believe the McCanns were left with no choice but to link 'bundleman' and 'Smith' - even though it is ridiculous - however, I still think Pat has dropped the ball here.
Whilst I totally believe a reconstruction is absolutely vital, there are so many odd variables.
IF Gerry proven to be at table, does this automatically mean the Smiths are mistaken / lying? Even if yes, does this PROVE Maddie was abducted? No - she (imo) was not in 5A by that time to BE abducted... Even if she was there, it could've been one of the others.
Does that make sense?
I also have concerns about 'IF the cadaver dogs were wrong' - 1)How could you prove that? A recovered live Maddie??? 2)even IF they are wrong, it wouldn't prove an abduction happened.
Either I have missed something here or Pat has made a few too may assumptions. I'm not trying to do her down as I am a great fan of hers. I follow her by e-mail and have posted in her defence many times.
I think its probably best to wait for her report, as this is only a media interview - she could've been misquoted.
I'm awaiting her report with baited breath... I'm sure her ideas will be explained more fully there.

by jd Thu 23 Feb - 18:57

I think Pats talks a lot of sense overall in what is said in this article. Relating to what really happened she has only said 'if's" and 'buts" & not given any info on what she has actually discovered, but the general 'overview' of a crime makes complete sense & what I would expect from a criminal profiler

I don't believe the Smith sighting at all...to me it is clear and obvious as day is light that this was made up to help Murat

by pennylane Thu 23 Feb - 19:09

My guess is Pat will further corroberate what Goncalo had deciphered long ago! I'm so grateful that she has taken the time to actually visit the crime scene and see for herself, and isn't afraid of the high priced bullies hired by TM.

I have always believed 100% that the Smith's saw Gerry McCann with Maddie on that ill-fated night. For me, the Smith sighting and the
blood and cadaver dog alerts are the major clangours to the group's bizarre abduction story! Also Jez Wilkins not seeing Jane or the abductor further adds credence to it being made up. Jane came into it latterly with a desperate alibi for Gerry, by claiming she saw him and the abductor at the same time because he knew he'd been seen. A very amateurish and unbelievable alibi I must say, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and Gerry had been caught in the act big time (imho)! I believe this with every fibre of my being, and believe that it is the cornerstone of the case.

by jd Thu 23 Feb - 19:14

the blood and cadaver dog alerts are the major clangours to the group's bizarre abduction story!

This I totally agree with without any doubts. One thing that dogs cannot do is lie!

by **tigger** Thu 23 Feb - 19:15

jd wrote:I think Pats talks a lot of sense overall in what is said in this article. Relating to what really happened she has only said 'if's" and 'buts" & not given any info on what she has actually discovered, but the general 'overview' of a crime makes complete sense & what I would expect from a criminal profiler

I don't believe the Smith sighting at all...to me it is clear and obvious as day is light that this was made up to help Murat

But Murat was pointed out by the T7 and JT in particular. Since he could be sure that nothing would be found on him or in the villa Liliana - I don't think he was in any real danger. I also think he mediated but did not himself touch anything incriminating.
The end result for Murat was over 600.000 pounds in damages. I'm sure if that hadn't happened, BK would have seen him right, that may have been what the meeting in the autumn of 2007 was about.
I totally believe the Smiths' sighting, not only because the whole family are consistent in their witness statement but because it makes sense if you are able to get inside Gerry's head. He is the clever boy of the family, he would think it brilliant to have an abductor seen in PdL. I like the fact that the clothes and the descriptions from both JT and the Smiths, stick to a man of around 35, dark hair, face not visible, height about that of Gerry. The faces were a later addition by JT and TM and for press consumption imo.
There had to be a reason for the police to understand why the parents were so sure it was an abduction:
Shutters on window were the only exit that Maddie couldn't handle by herself (perhaps they were thinking of the real girl - tennis girl? - not the 2yr old)
Cuddlecat and blanket on bed - never without them. (In fact a bit iffy, I've never seen a photograph of Maddie with them.
Abductor seen in street by JT (this went wrong - timing was out)
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

by Me Thu 23 Feb - 19:22

tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

by pennylane Thu 23 Feb - 19:28

Me wrote:
tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

If a person is wrongly accused of abducting a child merely because he was trying to help police with translations and language barriers, how else would he refer to the cataclysmic events, other than as 'the biggest **** up in history'? I don't take this to mean a plan had gone wrong at all; and if it had, he wouldn't be telling the world that way. jmho

by **tigger** Thu 23 Feb - 19:33

Me wrote:
tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

I'd forgotten about that. I'd only heard -years ago - something about Gerry by the swimming pool calling for Maddie?
I even entertain one possibility that they original abduction was planned for the 2nd, that went wrong too, Kiko was looking into the phone pings for that.
Textusa said that the 3rd was a plan executed by a committee - that does make sense!
I'm still sticking with the Smith sighting being Gerry, it's the trews on the bed y'see, why the hastily discarded clothing?
I have no suspicions of the Smiths re Murat. Murat has a glass eye and so you'd remember somebody who doesn't look quite right. I had a boss once who had a glass eye and you take more notice of the face because something isn't quite right.

by pennylane Thu 23 Feb - 19:35

tigger wrote:
Me wrote:
tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

I'd forgotten about that. I'd only heard -years ago - something about Gerry by the swimming pool calling for Maddie?
I even entertain one possibility that they original abduction was planned for the 2nd, that went wrong too, Kiko was looking into the phone pings for that.
Textusa said that the 3rd was a plan executed by a committee - that does make sense!
I'm still sticking with the Smith sighting being Gerry, it's the trews on the bed y'see, why the hastily discarded clothing?
I have no suspicions of the Smiths re Murat. Murat has a glass eye and so you'd remember somebody who doesn't look quite right. I had a boss once who had a glass eye and you take more notice of the face because something isn't quite right.

Murat doesn't have a glass eye, tigger. He has a detached retina I believe.

by **tigger** Thu 23 Feb - 19:37

pennylane wrote:
Me wrote:
tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

If a person is wrongly accused of abducting a child merely because he was trying to help police with translations and language barriers, how else would he refer to the cataclysmic events, other than as 'the biggest **** up in history'? I don't take this to mean a plan had gone wrong at all; and if it had, he wouldn't be telling the world that way. jmho

Pennylane, Murat is a key figure in this affair. I'm sure there is a topic just on him here, Joanna Morais also has information on him. Imo he knew exactly what was going on, being made an arguido wasn't part of the original plan, I would think. The PJ had other reasons apart from JT to suspect him, he changed his original statement on over 15 points, I believe. It's in the files.

by Me Thu 23 Feb - 19:43

pennylane wrote:
Me wrote:
tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

If a person is wrongly accused of abducting a child merely because he was trying to help police with translations and language barriers, how else would he refer to the cataclysmic events, other than as 'the biggest **** up in history'? I don't take this to mean a plan had gone wrong at all; and if it had, he wouldn't be telling the world that way. jmho

No i was referring to the abductor being seen when Gerry was at the table and not about Murat. I didn't snip the Murat bit of, so apologies for the confusion.

I meant this statement:

Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja

Date/Time: 2007/05/08 21H10
Executive Chef
Portuguese

. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;

by jd Thu 23 Feb - 19:45

tigger wrote: But Murat was pointed out by the T7 and JT in particular. Since he could be sure that nothing would be found on him or in the villa Liliana - I don't think he was in any real danger. I also think he mediated but did not himself touch anything incriminating.
The end result for Murat was over 600.000 pounds in damages. I'm sure if that hadn't happened, BK would have seen him right, that may have been what the meeting in the autumn of 2007 was about.
I totally believe the Smiths' sighting, not only because the whole family are consistent in their witness statement but because it makes sense if you are able to get inside Gerry's head. He is the clever boy of the family, he would think it brilliant to have an abductor seen in PdL. I like the fact that the clothes and the descriptions from both JT and the Smiths, stick to a man of around 35, dark hair, face not visible, height about that of Gerry. The faces were a later addition by JT and TM and for press consumption imo.
There had to be a reason for the police to understand why the parents were so sure it was an abduction:
Shutters on window were the only exit that Maddie couldn't handle by herself (perhaps they were thinking of the real girl - tennis girl? - not the 2yr old)
Cuddlecat and blanket on bed - never without them. (In fact a bit iffy, I've never seen a photograph of Maddie with them.
Abductor seen in street by JT (this went wrong - timing was out)
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

I can understand from the angle you and most are seeing the Smith sighting and in this respect it can make sense. I see it from a different angle and one taking in the whole picture. 4 of the T9 together using charlotte pennington's acting skills were trying to stitch up Murat. It was jane tanner in the car that got Murat made as suspect, and Murat needed some sort of alibi which Smith gave him 3 days after Murat was made suspect. If the Smith sighting was meant to help with abduction then why does Smith make the point of saying he is definitely 100% sure it was NOT Murat he saw, this despite also claiming he had only ever seen him a few times the years previous in PDL bars. Considering Smith owns an apartment in PDL and has been going there 3 times a year for years it is more likely Smith and Murat knew each other, than gerry mccann who was on in PDL for a week on a holiday. Murat is known by everyone in PDL, his family history for starters makes him well known. I am sure Smith and Murat are very close friends for Smith to do this for him and their relationship goes back many years. I bet Smith bought his apartment through Murats company

The 2nd time Smith appears is 9th Sept, the day the mccanns ran back to the UK after being made suspects....this brought about the BK meeting with Murat which in turn saw a miraculously change in story from the T9, then a few months after this Murat gets his payout and all has been quiet ever since. Actually during the summer of 2007 kate was saying how she 'knew' it was Murat who abducted Maddie, but after this BK meeting her story changes to she never thought it was ever him!!! This is a quick overview as I don't have time to write in detail but the Smith sighting is one nice little setup to help Murat against the T9 who from the outset were trying to frame him

by pennylane Thu 23 Feb - 19:50

tigger wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Me wrote:
tigger wrote:
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

Well that's open to some doubt because some of the staff statements show that they were aware of the missing child at 9.30 pm 30 minutes before Kate's claim that she found Maddie missing.

If a person is wrongly accused of abducting a child merely because he was trying to help police with translations and language barriers, how else would he refer to the cataclysmic events, other than as 'the biggest **** up in history'? I don't take this to mean a plan had gone wrong at all; and if it had, he wouldn't be telling the world that way. jmho

Pennylane, Murat is a key figure in this affair. I'm sure there is a topic just on him here, Joanna Morais also has information on him. Imo he knew exactly what was going on, being made an arguido wasn't part of the original plan, I would think. The PJ had other reasons apart from JT to suspect him, he changed his original statement on over 15 points, I believe. It's in the files.

Morning tigger,

I agree Murat and Malinka are hiding something. Perhaps they arranged adult 'life style' liaisons, or supplied party favours. My thoughts are that they were paid well to keep quiet. I personally do not believe Murat or Malinka were involved in Maddie's demise in any way.

by **tigger** Thu 23 Feb - 20:03

Pennylane, No I don't think so either. But Murat and JT are linked (Burgau mtDNA - Devon) Gerry likely knew him.
I think everything Murat did was after the fact. I think he was also too savvy to get his hands dirty. But he had contacts in the area. That must have been his main participation.

by Me Thu 23 Feb - 20:05

tigger wrote:Pennylane, No I don't think so either. But Murat and JT are linked (Burgau mtDNA - Devon) Gerry likely knew him.
I think everything Murat did was after the fact. I think he was also too savvy to get his hands dirty. But he had contacts in the area. That must have been his main participation.

Gerry's phone records and Murat's also should arouse suspicion.

by pennylane Thu 23 Feb - 20:07

jd wrote:
tigger wrote: But Murat was pointed out by the T7 and JT in particular. Since he could be sure that nothing would be found on him or in the villa Liliana - I don't think he was in any real danger. I also think he mediated but did not himself touch anything incriminating.
The end result for Murat was over 600.000 pounds in damages. I'm sure if that hadn't happened, BK would have seen him right, that may have been what the meeting in the autumn of 2007 was about.
I totally believe the Smiths' sighting, not only because the whole family are consistent in their witness statement but because it makes sense if you are able to get inside Gerry's head. He is the clever boy of the family, he would think it brilliant to have an abductor seen in PdL. I like the fact that the clothes and the descriptions from both JT and the Smiths, stick to a man of around 35, dark hair, face not visible, height about that of Gerry. The faces were a later addition by JT and TM and for press consumption imo.
There had to be a reason for the police to understand why the parents were so sure it was an abduction:
Shutters on window were the only exit that Maddie couldn't handle by herself (perhaps they were thinking of the real girl - tennis girl? - not the 2yr old)
Cuddlecat and blanket on bed - never without them. (In fact a bit iffy, I've never seen a photograph of Maddie with them.
Abductor seen in street by JT (this went wrong - timing was out)
Abductor seen at time that G was at the table in PdL. (went wrong as well, Smiths didn't give a statement until 26/5? but may have contacted PJ earlier).
It may be that because these things went wrong it was decided to use Murat as the patsy. Murat who said it was the biggest ....up in history.
Which I take to mean there was a plan and it went wrong.

I can understand from the angle you and most are seeing the Smith sighting and in this respect it can make sense. I see it from a different angle and one taking in the whole picture. 4 of the T9 together using charlotte pennington's acting skills were trying to stitch up Murat. It was jane tanner in the car that got Murat made as suspect, and Murat needed some sort of alibi which Smith gave him 3 days after Murat was made suspect. If the Smith sighting was meant to help with abduction then why does Smith make the point of saying he is definitely 100% sure it was NOT Murat he saw, this despite also claiming he had only ever seen him a few times the years previous in PDL bars. Considering Smith owns an apartment in PDL and has been going there 3 times a year for years it is more likely Smith and Murat knew each other, than gerry mccann who was on in PDL for a week on a holiday. Murat is known by everyone in PDL, his family history for starters makes him well known. I am sure Smith and Murat are very close friends for Smith to do this for him and their relationship goes back many years. I bet Smith bought his apartment through Murats company

The 2nd time Smith appears is 9th Sept, the day the mccanns ran back to the UK after being made suspects....this brought about the BK meeting with Murat which in turn saw a miraculously change in story from the T9, then a few months after this Murat gets his payout and all has been quiet ever since. Actually during the summer of 2007 kate was saying how she 'knew' it was Murat who abducted Maddie, but after this BK meeting her story changes to she never thought it was ever him!!! This is a quick overview as I don't have time to write in detail but the Smith sighting is one nice little setup to help Murat against the T9 who from the outset were trying to frame him

Morning jd,

Gerry and Robert look so utterly different, it is likely that a witness would be able to state it wasn't Robert they saw carrying a child that night. Especially if he had seen Robert on a couple of previous occasions.

From personal experience, picking a burglar's picture from several shown to me by the police was quite difficult, but what I did know was he was fair skinned, and didn't wear glasses, and he didn't have a thick head of black hair. So these types were quickly eliminated as I narrowed the pictures down. If someone I vaguely knew had his picture amongst the suspect pictures, and he was completely different looking to the burglar it would be a very easy elimination.

by jd Thu 23 Feb - 20:08

I agree Murat and Malinka are hiding something. Perhaps they arranged adult 'life style' liaisons, or supplied party favours. My thoughts are that they were paid well to keep quiet. I personally do not believe Murat or Malinka were involved in Maddie's demise in any way.

I agree with this too. When you read all the statements including all the other guests, they are all hiding something and it is ridiculous to even suggest they are in this scam together. Logically, what brings everyone together in hiding something, can only be something on the lines of adult 'life style' liaisons shall we say....This is what every individual will be scared of having exposed and their reputations and careers back home with

by jd Thu 23 Feb - 20:12

pennylane wrote:
Morning jd,

Gerry and Robert look so utterly different, it is likely that a witness would be able to state it wasn't Robert they saw carrying a child that night. Especially if he had seen Robert on a couple of previous occasions.

From personal experience, picking a burglar's picture from several shown to me by the police was quite difficult, but what I did know was he was fair skinned, and didn't wear glasses, and he didn't have a thick head of black hair. So these types were quickly eliminated as I narrowed the pictures down. If someone I vaguely knew had his picture amongst the suspect pictures, and he was completely different looking to the burglar it would be a very easy elimination.

Morning Pennylane

It is also interesting that Smith says in his statement that Murat was not wearing glasses then...referring to when he saw him in a bar a year previous...The whole statement is so very fishy from its context to very much its timing on 2 separate occasions....Both times when suspects were made, Smith pops up....Timing is everything!

by Guest Thu 23 Feb - 20:22

I hope it's okay to post a link to Tony's informative article on Robert Murat.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Muratpt1.html

by pennylane Thu 23 Feb - 20:24

jd wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Morning jd,

Gerry and Robert look so utterly different, it is likely that a witness would be able to state it wasn't Robert they saw carrying a child that night. Especially if he had seen Robert on a couple of previous occasions.

From personal experience, picking a burglar's picture from several shown to me by the police was quite difficult, but what I did know was he was fair skinned, and didn't wear glasses, and he didn't have a thick head of black hair. So these types were quickly eliminated as I narrowed the pictures down. If someone I vaguely knew had his picture amongst the suspect pictures, and he was completely different looking to the burglar it would be a very easy elimination.

Morning Pennylane

It is also interesting that Smith says in his statement that Murat was not wearing glasses then...referring to when he saw him in a bar a year previous...The whole statement is so very fishy from its context to very much its timing on 2 separate occasions....Both times when suspects were made, Smith pops up....Timing is everything!

We have obviously drawn different conclusions from the information to hand. Still it's good to keep chewing it over.

Perhaps Pat Brown has gleaned something further re this sighting, that will shed some more light on it one way or the other? Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 9 3711883763

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 9 3711883763

by jd Thu 23 Feb - 20:27

Jean wrote:I hope it's okay to post a link to Tony's informative article on Robert Murat.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Muratpt1.html

Yes Jean, this article is so worth the read....very informative and puts many things into perspective

by Cheshire Cat Thu 23 Feb - 21:58

pennylane wrote:
jd wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Morning jd,

Gerry and Robert look so utterly different, it is likely that a witness would be able to state it wasn't Robert they saw carrying a child that night. Especially if he had seen Robert on a couple of previous occasions.

From personal experience, picking a burglar's picture from several shown to me by the police was quite difficult, but what I did know was he was fair skinned, and didn't wear glasses, and he didn't have a thick head of black hair. So these types were quickly eliminated as I narrowed the pictures down. If someone I vaguely knew had his picture amongst the suspect pictures, and he was completely different looking to the burglar it would be a very easy elimination.

Morning Pennylane

It is also interesting that Smith says in his statement that Murat was not wearing glasses then...referring to when he saw him in a bar a year previous...The whole statement is so very fishy from its context to very much its timing on 2 separate occasions....Both times when suspects were made, Smith pops up....Timing is everything!

We have obviously drawn different conclusions from the information to hand. Still it's good to keep chewing it over.

Perhaps Pat Brown has gleaned something further re this sighting, that will shed some more light on it one way or the other?

That is what I am wondering as well. I believe that the timing of Mr Smiths evidence coincides with the events that caused him to make that recall. When he saw McCann emerge from the aircraft, it was that sight which caused an alarming flashback.

I have also been thinking that if it could be proven that G was in the Tapas at the time of the Smith sighting then perhaps by default it must have been an "abduction" because the person who would have been carrying Maddie would not have been her father...

Latest topics