Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

by pennylane 23.02.12 9:09

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 23.02.12 9:14

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** 23.02.12 9:15

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 23.02.12 9:22

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 23.02.12 9:28

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** 23.02.12 9:33

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 23.02.12 9:35

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** 23.02.12 9:37

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 23.02.12 9:43

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 23.02.12 9:45

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 23.02.12 9:50

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** 23.02.12 10:03

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 23.02.12 10:05

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 23.02.12 10:07

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 23.02.12 10:08

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 23.02.12 10:12

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 23.02.12 10:22

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 23.02.12 10:24

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 11 3711883763

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 11 3711883763

by jd 23.02.12 10:27

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 23.02.12 11:58

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...

by Me 23.02.12 13:14

PeterMac wrote:Full text

Pat Brown
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;

Can someone clarify i thought the video showed that the shutters could be opened from the outside?

by Cheshire Cat 23.02.12 14:40

Gonçalo Amaral speaks to IOL PortugalDiário, 03/04 August 2008

PortugalDiário: The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

Gonçalo Amaral: 'It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further.'

I found it puzzling why the PJ investigation under Rebelo did not follow up on the Smith sighting. The reason given was that Gerry was sitting in the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it was not him. However, the post Amaral phase of the investigation seemed more concerned with archiving the investigation rather than an attempt to get to the truth. The Tapas were handled with 'Kid gloves' and Mr Smith was not heard again.

Perhaps this reveals just how crucial a witness Mr Smith is in getting to the truth? Goncalo Amaral says that, despite the final PJ report placing McCann in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting, this 'fact' is not proven and the evidence is not there to back it up.

by russiandoll 23.02.12 16:21

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...

no muck up , my dear. I think exactly the same.
Disappointing indeed , can only hope that the full context of this is made clear and there is some additional info to add to these assumptions, because as you say, a v low burden of proof and makes me think perhaps not reported in full the way it was initially by PB. She is usually incisive, she herself would have made the comments you did after reading that piece, it is exactly the kind of thing she would have dimsantled with logic.

by aiyoyo 23.02.12 16:56

From that, I would say it appears Pat Brown gives credibility to Smith's sighted man as "Gerry".

Would the Smith family, if subjected to re-interview, stick to their conviction? If not, where does that leave Pat Brown's theory?

For example, if proven Gerry was neither at the table nor positively identified as Smith's "man" ...what then?

No abduction and mccanns not involved...?

by Cheshire Cat 23.02.12 18:01

aiyoyo wrote:From that, I would say it appears Pat Brown gives credibility to Smith's sighted man as "Gerry".

Would the Smith family, if subjected to re-interview, stick to their conviction? If not, where does that leave Pat Brown's theory?

For example, if proven Gerry was neither at the table nor positively identified as Smith's "man" ...what then?

No abduction and mccanns not involved...?

Pat Brown does indeed give credibility to the Smiths sighted man as "Gerry". Which I think is a good thing because Mr Smith appears to be a very credible witness.

Amaral and Pat say it is a reconstruction that will provide the evidence, Mr Smith provides useful information.

Say Mr Smith is further interviewed, almost five years after the event, one would expect less detail in his account about what he saw and how he felt. Even in 2007 Mr Smith could not state with 100% confidence that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.

He spoke of the similarities and the alarm he felt when he saw Gerry on the runway with child in his arms. What would further interviews achieve now? No, a reconstruction, to jog memories is what is needed and SY should have made that their priority.

Log in for more topics