Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown

by jmac 02.03.12 17:20

I have trouble with the idea of a substitute. If the sub also had parents picking her up from creche as well as the McCanns it would mean that there was one less child in the creche than there should have been. It was a small group. A missing child would have been noticed.

Having said that the creche records look suspicious.

by worriedmum 02.03.12 18:16

If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

by **tigger** 02.03.12 19:49

worriedmum wrote:If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

As to your last point, simple would be good, but: these were allegedly printed within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, wouldn't it be more logical:
a) to search for your daughter who could only be minutes away
b) use a recent photograph from your camera to print out - not a picture from nearly 18 months ago (and why would that be so easily available at that time?)
c) how did the eye defect get on the photograph? Because they are on record on the 11th May 2011 in the Piers Morgan interview that it was just a fleck which you could only see from very close by

Simple would be nice - simple would be shouting her name, not leaving your other two children alone and simple would be to assume she'd wandered off, through the open patio door - it wasn't locked, a four years old could easily open it. Especially in view of the fact that Maddie often woke during the night and got a star on a chart at home when she stayed in bed all night.
That's simple.
Shouting - not her name, but 'They've taken her!' is not simple although it handily gives us the whole of the plot line. Paedophiles turned up in droves soon afterwards, in part two of the plot line.

by rainbow-fairy 02.03.12 19:54

worriedmum wrote:If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

Just some possibilities -
1)Maybe there was no benefit to Gerry being seen and he had no choice but to go out. As for going in disguise or a hoody, didn't Amaral say that the route he took would normally be deserted at that time of night and year?
2)You assume that if it wasn't a 'sub' it had to be a dead Maddie - why? It could've been Amelie. If it WAS a dead Maddie (which I really doubt) I would've thought, knowing he'd been spotted he would have got rid of the clothes he was wearing, in case...
As for the printer paper, would that be the printer that has never been traced because it conveniently went to France with the boyfriend??? I guess its possible that that is where the paper came from, but it still doesn't explain WHY they had a photoshopped picture on a memory stick with them? Nor why they released this picture that didn't resemble the daughter allegedly missing?

by rainbow-fairy 02.03.12 20:13

tigger wrote:
worriedmum wrote:If the Smiths, belief that the person they saw carrying a child was GM, surely this raises two important issues:
i) Why on earth would he go undisguised, with or without a 'substitute'? Even wearing a hoody would help. What possible benefit would there be in being seen and recognised ?
ii)so if it wasn't a substitute, why was there no cadaver odour?

I wonder if there is so much information out there that posters are not considering the most simple scenarios, which I would have thought have just as much merit.
eg, the reason the posters were printed quickly on paper unavailable in Portugal was because whoever had the printer(nanny?nanny's boyfriend?sorry can't remember)
brought it with them , with the printer, from the UK.....

As to your last point, simple would be good, but: these were allegedly printed within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, wouldn't it be more logical:
a) to search for your daughter who could only be minutes away
b) use a recent photograph from your camera to print out - not a picture from nearly 18 months ago (and why would that be so easily available at that time?)
c) how did the eye defect get on the photograph? Because they are on record on the 11th May 2011 in the Piers Morgan interview that it was just a fleck which you could only see from very close by

Simple would be nice - simple would be shouting her name, not leaving your other two children alone and simple would be to assume she'd wandered off, through the open patio door - it wasn't locked, a four years old could easily open it. Especially in view of the fact that Maddie often woke during the night and got a star on a chart at home when she stayed in bed all night.
That's simple.
Shouting - not her name, but 'They've taken her!' is not simple although it handily gives us the whole of the plot line. Paedophiles turned up in droves soon afterwards, in part two of the plot line.

tigger, hadn't seen your post when I replied, but once again great minds think alike! Wink

by worriedmum 02.03.12 20:58

tigger wrote''
As to your last point, simple would be good, but: these were allegedly
printed within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, wouldn't it be more
logical:
a) to search for your daughter who could only be minutes away
b)
use a recent photograph from your camera to print out - not a picture
from nearly 18 months ago (and why would that be so easily available at
that time?)
c) how did the eye defect get on the photograph? Because
they are on record on the 11th May 2011 in the Piers Morgan interview
that it was just a fleck which you could only see from very close by

Simple
would be nice - simple would be shouting her name, not leaving your
other two children alone and simple would be to assume she'd wandered
off, through the open patio door - it wasn't locked, a four years old
could easily open it. Especially in view of the fact that Maddie often
woke during the night and got a star on a chart at home when she stayed
in bed all night.
That's simple.
Shouting - not her name, but
'They've taken her!' is not simple although it handily gives us the
whole of the plot line. Paedophiles turned up in droves soon afterwards,
in part two of the plot line. ''

Sorry Tigger, I don't think I expressed myself clearly..

a)yes I totally agree
b)yes obviously recent is better
c) I do think she had a coloboma and maybe health issues that went with this, just my opinion, seems very strange to me it is now being downplayed...

When I said simple, I meant a timeline of events leading up to Madeleine's disappearance:I agree that the reactions of the parents are not what I could imagine myself doing in those circumstances, especially leaving sleeping babies alone if you think there is an abductor. Rainbow-fairy I like your point that maybe the Smiths' 'GM' just HAD to go then and expected it to be empty streets.Desperation?

I really can't get my head round the idea of a substitute- I just thought that the record keeping at the Creche was more relaxed than we would expect and I wonder if we are being diverted from more straightforward explanations-the trouble with so many inconsistencies is, what do you take as your base-line--what can be pinned down as actual truth?
Thank you for your thoughts on this.

by jmac 02.03.12 21:36

Speculations are obviously open to the investigators and they can direct their questions and investigations accordingly and so determine whether or not their speculations are accurate.

Unfortunately it is not possible for a forum such as this to do such a thing. Therefore there is a risk that such speculations will be judged as wild, off the mark, etc. In fact, they cannot ALL be accurate.

I am not opposed to speculation, but I am against the suggestion that such speculation could `turn this case around`. RUBBISH

by jmac 02.03.12 21:49

What is required is evidence. Tony Bennett presented his concerns in a clear and concicse manner with evience to support his case and that is why he is now being pursued by the McCanns.

The flurry of speculation now going on is acting against the clarity with which he presented his evidence and is not helpful.

by MikeH 02.03.12 22:01

Hi everyone,

I've registered before, a year or more ago, but had my account deactivated because I didn't post. Like many of you, I've followed this case from the start, and don't intend to give up on it anytime soon.

Supporting the substitute theory....

I've just got to add that the use of the out of date picture supports the substitute Madeleine theory completely. They could not use a current photo of Madeleine because all of the nannies would notice that it was not the same child, hence the assortment of photos we see, all appearing to be almost different children. The nannies would have stated that the Madeleine they had looked after was a different child, similar perhaps, but not the same. Using a plethora of photographs of differently aged photos of Madeleine just clouded the issue.

The "photoshopped" iconic image of Madeleine which everyone now knows, was clearly prepared and printed in advance as this was the image that they had to get out there at the earliest opportunity, cute and marketable Madeleine, and following the admittance on the Piers Morgan show that this coloboma was nothing but a slight fleck, this image must have been enhanced, which all points to pre planning of the entire "abduction" scenario.

And... just where are all the loving family photographs, which normal families take frequently of their children, from this holiday which would show Madeleine as she really appeared at this time - in reality there are none, other than the one which mysteriously appeared several weeks later after a return visit to the UK.

Simply, if your child went missing, a child aged almost 4 years old, would you immediately have photos printed of how your child appeared almost two years ago so that people would know who to look for............ ?

Mike

by worriedmum 02.03.12 22:03

going back to the beginning of this thread, and just'thinking aloud', if you had to make a body 'disappear', it would be a bit pointless to go and ''look' for it later too ,wouldn't it...you might have to 'find' it in front of other people....

by **tigger** 02.03.12 22:07

Hi, The timeline of events leading up to Maddie's disappearance comes courtesy of the key players. Therefore it is unreliable evidence imo. We have little independent evidence of events, so one is stuck with circumstantial evidence. That's all there is, barring a sudden attack of conscience on the part of the McCanns.
Gerry McCann himself has said that it is good there is so much confusion out there. Yet another strange thing to say if you want to find your daughter.

So putting circumstantial and recorded evidence together is always going to lead to various interpretations. We can surmise, we cannot know.
I do know however what happened if I find an empty canary cage, feathers on the floor and a satisfied cat. Circumstantial evidence at its best.

by jmac 02.03.12 22:21

Exactly, and without anything stonger there is nothing ...

by **PeterMac** 03.03.12 8:22

Most murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence.
People spend their lives in prison, or in days gone by were hanged, purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

by **tigger** 03.03.12 8:34

PeterMac wrote:Most murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence.
People spend their lives in prison, or in days gone by were hanged, purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

That's why I said: I do know however what happened if I find an empty canary cage, feathers on the floor and a satisfied cat. Circumstantial evidence at its best.
Isn't it the weight of the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that decides the outcome of a trial?

If say an amount of 1026,23 2 is missing from the cash desk of a shop and my bank account is found to have been augmented in cash by exactly that amount, I would say it is strong circumstantial evidence, since it cannot be proved that it's exactly the same notes and coins that are deposited. But I'm still going to have to explain where it came from?

jmac seems to disagree.

by bobbin 03.03.12 8:59

Or tigger,

and agreeing with your post,

as in the much more complicated McCann’s case, where confusion is good, where money-laundering, sorry, I meant, strange-unaccounted-expenses and depletion of funds, are yet to be explained, there could be someone in the accounts department who had access to your bank details, who moved the money across into your account, intending to go into the bank themselves, to remove the cash, and leave you carrying the can.

Look at how Murat has been implicated, Halligen, etc. who knows !

That’s why we’re still here.

We know something has gone missing, a real life little girl, or has she?

That’s where the circumstantial evidence is harder to pin down, and to ANYONE who questions, or seeks to diminish, why we are here, chewing over every detail that we can jointly bring to the surface, ‘purporting’ our different theories and possibilities, the very complexity of this ‘very, very fishy tale’ is why we are still here and will be for the duration. Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown - Page 2 1135810427

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown - Page 2 1135810427

by Guest 03.03.12 9:06

MikeH wrote:Hi everyone,

I've registered before, a year or more ago, but had my account deactivated because I didn't post. Like many of you, I've followed this case from the start, and don't intend to give up on it anytime soon.

Supporting the substitute theory....

I've just got to add that the use of the out of date picture supports the substitute Madeleine theory completely. They could not use a current photo of Madeleine because all of the nannies would notice that it was not the same child, hence the assortment of photos we see, all appearing to be almost different children. The nannies would have stated that the Madeleine they had looked after was a different child, similar perhaps, but not the same. Using a plethora of photographs of differently aged photos of Madeleine just clouded the issue.

The "photoshopped" iconic image of Madeleine which everyone now knows, was clearly prepared and printed in advance as this was the image that they had to get out there at the earliest opportunity, cute and marketable Madeleine, and following the admittance on the Piers Morgan show that this coloboma was nothing but a slight fleck, this image must have been enhanced, which all points to pre planning of the entire "abduction" scenario.

And... just where are all the loving family photographs, which normal families take frequently of their children, from this holiday which would show Madeleine as she really appeared at this time - in reality there are none, other than the one which mysteriously appeared several weeks later after a return visit to the UK.

Simply, if your child went missing, a child aged almost 4 years old, would you immediately have photos printed of how your child appeared almost two years ago so that people would know who to look for............ ?

Mike

Excellent first post Mike H and welcome back to the forum. Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown - Page 2 3711883763

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown - Page 2 3711883763

Your last point especially gives good cause alone, for the substitue theory.

by tuom 07.04.12 20:46

tigger wrote:Hi, The timeline of events leading up to Maddie's disappearance comes courtesy of the key players. Therefore it is unreliable evidence imo. We have little independent evidence of events, so one is stuck with circumstantial evidence. That's all there is, barring a sudden attack of conscience on the part of the McCanns.
Gerry McCann himself has said that it is good there is so much confusion out there. Yet another strange thing to say if you want to find your daughter.

So putting circumstantial and recorded evidence together is always going to lead to various interpretations. We can surmise, we cannot know.
I do know however what happened if I find an empty canary cage, feathers on the floor and a satisfied cat. Circumstantial evidence at its best.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown - Page 2 677999948

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown - Page 2 41345390

by Guest 14.10.13 12:49

Bumping this with Pat Brown's opening post on the Smith sighting.

by **PeterMac** 01.11.13 16:36

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com.es/2013/11/its-disaster-gerry-mccann.html

Martin Luther King, Jr. · by bodiddly 01.11.13 21:34

Great post by PB. She is right about the "disaster" quote and the taking the first immediate words out of someone's mouth.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's by Pat Brown