Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case - Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Monday, April 10, 2017

Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case

 


An awful lot of people believe the "Last Photo" is the key to what happened to Maddie. I disagree. Furthermore, I don't believe it is even very important in the analysis of this case. Worse, it is a huge distraction which has lead to a very complicated theory of Maddie dying on Sunday which lacks the support of solid, credible evidence. Furthermore, it completely negates the most important piece of evidence in the case - The Smith sighting. Let me explain how, as a profiler, the "Last Photo" as any kind of evidence pales in comparison to the Smith sighting and excessive focus on it should be laid to rest.

First of all, the "Last Photo" is not photoshopped. It is a real photo. Now, as to when it was taken, I will accept that it might not have been taken when the McCanns claimed. I will go even further and be willing to accept that one possibility is that it might have been taken on Sunday. So, let's say it was indeed taken on that day. What does that tell us? Here is where the speculation goes off track. As a profiler, all I can tell you is if it is true the photo was taken days before the McCanns claim, there might be a half dozen reasons for them choosing that photo and saying it was taken later in the week, none of which are very alarming to the point of throwing up a huge red flag.

Here is an example of how speculating on certain evidence leads to false conclusions.

My granddaughter was born three years ago. She was born at my daughter's home in a planned home birth quite close to her due date, just a day or so early. At the time of her birth, I lived just thirty minutes from my daughter's home. On the occasion of my granddaughter's first birthday, my daughter cobbled together one of those first-year-of-life albums with photos from birth through turning one. As one peruses the photos, one cannot help notice that there is but one photo of me, the only grandmother, in the whole book and I am conspicuously absent from the birth photos. My ex-husband is shown holding the newborn baby in a couple of photos, the baby's uncles are there with big smiles on their faces, my best friend (who was an "aunty" to my daughter during her childhood) is there helping at the birth, but I am not. Why am I, the grandmother of the baby, the mother of the woman giving birth, not there?

Okay, start speculating.







Did any of you come up with these possibilities?

My daughter and I have a bad relationship and I wasn't invited to the birth.
I was busy doing television and my career and publicity was more important than being at the birth.
I was off traveling - having planned a vacation around the time of my daughter's due date.
I was opposed to home birth an refused to show up and support my daughter's choice.


Yeah, none of these are true. Oh, and, wait, look here! What is this?











Yes, that is a photo of me at the birth! What the heck? Where did that come from and why, if it isn't a photoshopped picture or a photo of me with another baby, or a photo of me with the baby on a day sometime after the birth, why wasn't that photo in my daughter's picture book? Why would it be left out?

First of all, let's talk about if the photo is actually me at the birth. Yes, it is a real photo. I was there. Not only was I there, but I chose to be there under stressful circumstances. Oh, no, not that I had any problems with my daughter; our relationship was fine. And I am a supporter of home birth; my son, David, was born at home. In fact, I went with my daughter to her final midwifery appointment and as soon as she called and told me she was in labor, I raced over to her house. I would never have planned a vacation during the last month of her pregnancy and I would have turned down all television and work-related jobs to be present at the birth. In fact, the stressful circumstance which made my presence difficult was that my mother was dying in another state and I had to choose whether to be at her deathbed or at my granddaughter's birth.

I had been at my father's side when he died just a year earlier and I had been making trips back and forth to New York to help my sister care for my mother in her last year of life as she declined with Alzheimers. After she fell and was hospitalized for the last time, my other sister went up to New York to help as my daughter's due date was nearing. I then had to the choose to be with my mother or to be with my daughter, not knowing exactly when my daughter would give birth or my mother would leave this world. I did what I thought my mother would sanction; I stayed for the birth. My mother died the same day, just hours after the baby was born, so I was unable to fly there after the birth to be there in time to say goodbye.

So, yes, I was at the birth, totally involved, and none of the negative speculation would have been accurate. So, what about the photo? Quite simple really. My daughter didn't have that photo. I never had sent it over to her. The photos she DID have of me weren't very flattering and she knows I hate bad photos of myself, so she kindly did not include them in the book. Yes, other grandmothers wouldn't have cared if they looked like a wildebeest holding the baby but my daughter knew it would make me shudder. I asked a woman who put a photo of me kissing an iguana in a marketplace during a trip to Nicaragua to pull the photo from Facebook; the iguana's sideview of it's neck and dewlap hanging down looked a whole lot better than mine. I love the photo (privately) but not for public viewing!  Okay, call me what you will -  proud, vain, whatever - I just hate embarrassingly bad photos of myself at my age.

So, now, see how speculation as to why there was no  photo of me at my granddaughter's birth can go so far off course? Now, think about the "Last Photo" of the McCanns. Why would they lie about the time it was taken? I can think of a whole bunch of reasons which are far less bizarre than Maddie being dead by Sunday which then requires a massive plan to hide the fact and cooperation of a great number of people being  needed to carry on the charade for the next four days.

Let's see.

1. There WERE other photos of Maddie that week but they were blurred or not very good, so the McCanns chose the pool photo but said it was on Thursday because that made the photo more compelling (the LAST photo! The McCanns like spin and know its value).

2. They were other photos of Maddie but THEY look bad in them (and Kate and Gerry like to look good).

3. There were no other photos past Sunday because once they did their day with the children, they dumped them in care during the day and left them at night because they were busy enjoying their adult vacation and they didn't want to admit not spending time with them.

In other words, it is dangerous to speculate, creating dots that do not necessarily exist and then connecting those dots to create a theory. To me, the "Last Photo" is just a photo and I can find no reason to exaggerate its meaning.

Now, the Smith sighting is a completely different animal. THIS is the KEY to the case and yet it is even poo-poo'ed as having merit, mostly because it invalidates the earlier death theory of Madeleine. Simply, if the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine toward the beach on the evening of May 3, then Madeleine died an accidental death while being neglected and there is no big child sex ring that Gerry and his friends and the British governement are involved in.

But, we can't invalidate or diminish the Smith sighting for one HUGE reason and this is the KEY to the case. The McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting themselves. Unlike every parent I have ever dealt with whose child went missing or was found murdered, the McCanns were not interested in the biggest lead in their child going missing. Why is this? There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street. For if Gerry DID have a solid alibi at that time, the McCanns would have jumped at a sighting that was validated by an entire bunch of strangers, not just a close friend who could easily not be believed (and wasn't). The McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting is the bombshell in the Madeleine McCann case, not some photo that has a half dozen reasons for possibily not being the last one taken of Maddie.

Even if I could explain away every other behavior of the McCanns and every other piece of evidence in this case, the one thing I cannot possibly come up with is an alternative explanation for is the McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting. If they are innocent of any connection to Maddie going missing, they would have jumped on the Smith sighting as a huge lead as to who might have taken their daughter. And if they are guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, their ignoring of the Smith sighting is the strongest piece of evidence we have of Maddie's death and subsequent cover-up being an inside job and not a stranger abduction.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 10, 2017

Totally agree in that the Smith sighting is key.

Disagree though about the photo not being photoshopped.

And not really sure what she's on about in regards to her own photo/family album stuff.

That was my initial skim read reaction too.

She's saying I think that you can't always judge a situation correctly by someone's absence from a family photo.

Freedom wrote:That was my initial skim read reaction too.

She's saying I think that you can't always judge a situation correctly by someone's absence from a family photo.

Well I suppose she does have a point about conclusions. I just thought she was the one who had taken all the photos. Simples!

Very logical,as regards the last photo.
IMO, and she is correct to say many reasons for odd poses, faces and people not being included in a photograph.

Totally agree with her analysis of the Smith sighting, he was never promoted,despite what is constantly pushed on another forum , he was more or less ignored, I expect Mr Bennett is none too happy

..... None too happy? He'll be absolutely fuming and be bursting with rage.

I'm predicting a desperate attempt, written up in blue of course, to try and refute Pat's latest on the Smith sighting.

Oh and one of those nonsense polls he specialises in where he has to raid his own sock drawer  

In regards to the last photo, I was just reading this blog about it again by Textusa, as it was posted up in her latest comments:

https://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/non-post.html

It's been a long time since I've read it (and not sure if I read it in its entirety at the time), and even though there are parts of Textusa's theories about other matters I don't necessarily agree on, I think she is more or less spot on with this one.

I don't want to turn this into a 'last photo' discussion as there's plenty of that on the other threads (and that particular blog will be on there somewhere). But for those who haven't read it then take the time to do so.

Well I would think a professionally trained criminal profiler would know what she is talking about, far more than any of us armchair detectives.

Just a reminder of the article that appeared, it was a real jaw dropping article.


Seeking justice‏ @justice4maddie · 1h1 hour ag0
Replying to @justice4maddie @TheSun
#McCann




Although an apology was written by the Sunday Times (on link below)  it does say the efits were compiled in 2008 and not passed on until 2009.  The Met did not get them until 2011.

Apology here..
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kate-and-gerry-mccann-and-madeleines-fund-jwbq0c7wdj8

Some comments left by Pat on the blog:


Pat Brown said...
Anon 10:14,

I don't object to other theories - after all, that is why they are called theories! However, as a profiler, I want evidence that is solid to base my theory on. While I really have no clue to if the last photo was taken on Thursday or Sunday, there is nothing I can find that is substantial enough to warrant an earlier death. If the death were earlier, I can guarantee from the history of parents covering up children's deaths, they do the simplest thing possible. Which, in fact, is what the McCanns likely did under the panic of the evening of May 3. Furthermore, there is no need to guess what the McCanns thought about the Smith sighting; they told us and their behaviors clearly informed us that they did not want to acknowledge that sighting as a possible "abductor." Hence, THAT is solid evidence and that is what I base my theory on (along with many other pieces of evidence - lack of evidence of abduction, the dogs, the lies, etc.)



Pat Brown said...
Anne,

I have covered this over and over in my blogs but, simply put, the discombobulation of the evening supports Gerry discovered Madeleine dead and made a decision to deal with it. Furthermore, setting oneself up for neglect charges and the hatred of the police is unnecessary when all you have to do is go to jimmy a window after dark and pretend someone broke in and took the child while you were sleeping. This way, you remain the ever decent parent with the sympathies of the police and public. The apartment was locked down (I do NOT believe the sliding door was left open) and the convoluted and changing story of how the abductor got in was hastily concocted which is why nothing was planned earlier on.

I really like Pat and enjoy a lot of her blogs, one of my favourites is her thoughts on why she dislikes the McCanns. I'm not sure about this one, I think both the Smith sighting and the last photo are pieces of the puzzle, I'm not sure how they all fit together but I don't think the last photo is genuine and I think the Smiths are credible witnesses - I don't think it has to be one or the other but maybe that's just hedging your bets?

And still not a peep about this endorsement of Smithman over yonder!

Does this mean that discrediting Smithman trumps convincing people that TLP is genuine. Smithman is therefore more explosive than TLP is damning..,

I would say Smithman is far more explosive than the last photo.

And judging by the amount of threads alone on trying to discredit the Smiths, then CMoMM clearly think the same.

I think that Smithman is more important for the investigation and actually solving the case.

I don't think the last photo is genuine and, while it may not be as significant as Smithman, it is still part of the wider picture of what happened, as opposed to what the McCanns want you to think happened, that week.

Dee Coy wrote:And still not a peep about this endorsement of Smithman over yonder!

Does this mean that discrediting Smithman trumps convincing people that TLP is genuine. Smithman is therefore more explosive than TLP is damning..,

Maybe it's on a members only topic? Can somebody find out about that, please?

Perhaps a new lorry load of blue ink hasn't arrived yet.

But, we can't invalidate or diminish the Smith sighting for one HUGE reason and this is the KEY to the case. The McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting themselves. Unlike every parent I have ever dealt with whose child went missing or was found murdered, the McCanns were not interested in the biggest lead in their child going missing. Why is this? There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street. For if Gerry DID have a solid alibi at that time, the McCanns would have jumped at a sighting that was validated by an entire bunch of strangers, not just a close friend who could easily not be believed (and wasn't). The McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting is the bombshell in the Madeleine McCann case, not some photo that has a half dozen reasons for possibily not being the last one taken of Maddie.

Even if I could explain away every other behavior of the McCanns and every other piece of evidence in this case, the one thing I cannot possibly come up with is an alternative explanation for is the McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting. If they are innocent of any connection to Maddie going missing, they would have jumped on the Smith sighting as a huge lead as to who might have taken their daughter. And if they are guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, their ignoring of the Smith sighting is the strongest piece of evidence we have of Maddie's death and subsequent cover-up being an inside job and not a stranger abduction.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 10, 2017



Indeed.

A comment left on the blog by our old friend, WLBTS:

Anonymous said...
From the artist formerly known as WLBTS:

I totally agree with you Pat on all the points you put forward. My 30+ years of experience in software engineering (and various image formats were a significant part of my degree) tells me that if there is any evidence that the 'last photo' was manipulated I haven't seen it, other than the date which is easily changed. I see nothing wrong with that photograph.

As you've demonstrated, you can come up with many different explanations for anything, and one of mine on this particular case is this - Gerry and Kate had been fighting all week (Diane Webster remarked that she thought 'it was another one of their games', which to me indicates they were in conflict during the holiday, although of course certain forum posters will no doubt treat the word 'game' entirely literally and come up with some kind of 'sex game' theory). As a result, they hadn't spend much time with the kids, and only had a photo or two of them at the pool in the middle of the week. They didn't want the police or the public to be aware of them fighting - they had presented themselves to the world as the perfect middle-class couple, and suspicion was already falling upon them. So they changed the date to make it look like it was the 'last photo', rather than 'one of the only photos we took'.

I don't find the last photo important at all. The Smith sighting is all important. The McCanns should have been shouting about this sighting to all the world, whether they were involved or were entirely innocent. A certain person and his forum socks, endless polls and blue ink may well deny that, but it is the truth.

That's a blast from the past there.

As regards the "playing games" comment, I recall someone saying that this doesn't appear anywhere in Dianne Webster's police statement and therefore can't be confirmed.

Tony Bennett has now commented - and there's a poll!

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13917-pat-brown-is-still-claiming-like-operation-grange-and-the-mccanns-that-smithman-is-the-key-to-solving-the-madeleine-mccann-mystery-and-dismissing-the-evidence-the-last-photo-was-taken-on-sunday-as-irrelevant#363105

Freedom wrote:That's a blast from the past there.

As regards the "playing games" comment, I recall someone saying that this doesn't appear anywhere in Dianne Webster's police statement and therefore can't be confirmed.

Just out of interest...is there a link to where she says it??

poster wrote:There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street.

Was it possible for him to be away from the scene sufficiently long to get there and back and do what was required at his destination?

So a post from over there by admin says the Smith sighting is on their website.  But the question would have to be when did it appear, and the answer I think IIRC was only when Op Grange took over.  Prior to that we only had Tannerman as far as I am aware, yet the Smithman was known when the files came out in 2008.  

Smithman has never been actively promoted at all that I am aware, apart from Op Grange in the Crimewatch interview imo.  I have to be fair and say I have never heard the McCanns talk about it before, and do a press conference or anything like that urging people to give information as they have in the past with other witnesses.  The mention in the McCanns own documentary tends to morph Smithman into Tannerman by both men carrying a child in the same way with arms in front and not how Smithman carried the child over his shoulder.  This is the crux of the matter as it is  in the files and even to the point of Mr Smith identifying 60 - 80 per cent who was carrying the child, making it clear it was not the same way as Jane Tanner described.... So why was he shown carrying the child in front of him in that documentary?

unreorganised wrote:

poster wrote:There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street.

Was it possible for him to be away from the scene sufficiently long to get there and back and do what was required at his destination?

That, surely, depends on the destination, and what was being done there?

I have always thought that the body was probably not that well concealed, at first. It did not matter that much if it was found, any trace of drugs would be due to the abductor, of course. If there were any signs of abuse, again, due to the abductor. After the first few hours, they did not have a major issue with it being found. I also believe that Kate wanted the body found, she was ringing the PJ with half-clues when Gerry was away.

Later, of course, there were good, sound, financial reasons for not wanting the body found.



I am also struck by the fact that Amaral feels the Smith sighting is important, he states that the time they paid for their meal is one of the three fixed points in this investigation. If he felt that the Smith sighting was nothing to do with the case, he would not include that.

candyfloss wrote:So a post from over there by admin says the Smith sighting is on their website.  But the question would have to be when did it appear, and the answer I think IIRC was only when Op Grange took over.  Prior to that we only had Tannerman as far as I am aware, yet the Smithman was known when the files came out in 2008.  

Smithman has never been actively promoted at all that I am aware, apart from Op Grange in the Crimewatch interview imo.  I have to be fair and say I have never heard the McCanns talk about it before, and do a press conference or anything like that urging people to give information as they have in the past with other witnesses.  The mention in the McCanns own documentary tends to morph Smithman into Tannerman by both men carrying a child in the same way with arms in front and not how Smithman carried the child over his shoulder.  This is the crux of the matter as it is  in the files and even to the point of Mr Smith identifying 60 - 80 per cent who was carrying the child, making it clear it was not the same way as Jane Tanner described.... So why was he shown carrying the child in front of him in that documentary?

I agree about their website - Smithman never appeared in the early days. It may have been after Crimewatch but could it have been after the Sunday Times exposure about them having the efits all along (for which ST had to apologise). It seems the efits were posted on there begrudgingly.

Found this and interesting re Smith sighting......

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/disgusting-episode-of-distorted.html

Bampots wrote:

Freedom wrote:That's a blast from the past there.

As regards the "playing games" comment, I recall someone saying that this doesn't appear anywhere in Dianne Webster's police statement and therefore can't be confirmed.

Just out of interest...is there a link to where she says it??

I can`t find one as yet, but I definitely remember it being said in someone`s statement.

Someone was asking this in 2010 in the comments on Anna Andress blog :-
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/kate-and-gerry-mccann-torn-apart-by-his.html