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

Please can we stay on the topic of Mr Smith key to the case according to Pat Brown.

DNA and forensics can be discussed elsewhere.

Anonymous said...
Hello Pat. You've met Tony Bennett. Do you not find it a bit strange that he spends so much of his time and effort in trying to discredit the Smiths? The majority of people that agree with yourself and Goncalo on the importance of the Smithman sighting have all been banned by him and Jill Haven on the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann forum. Do you have any thoughts yourself on that? Thanks.


April 12, 2017 at 10:08 AM
Blogger Pat Brown said...
Anon 10:08,

Tony recently sent me a lovely email congratulating me on the recent Australian and UK press. Occasionally, we send emails to each other and both of us look back fondly at our meeting in London. All I can say is, sometimes when people have become heavily invested in a particular belief, they tend to get upset when that belief is threatened. Also, it may be that once one has stood behind a belief for so long and one gets inklings that maybe that maybe the thing one has believed in so strongly might not actually be true, then one fights to maintain that belief. Kind of a normal human thing.

Also, this may be an issue for some, but, for myself, I don't take it personally if someone has a different theory than me or disagrees with my take on something. Even though this is my field, I recognize a) I could be wrong and b) people with less expertise do not understand things the same way. So, I try to remain friendly and civil if they are willing to do the same. I think Tony Bennett is a straight arrow and has no ulterior motive than to get at the truth. I think Richard Hall is a good filmmaker who has done some really good work (I like his first bit on the McCann case) but I feel his tendency is to find dots that are not meaningful and connect them to create a scenario that is not probable (which is how many conspiracy theories develop).

I also think the weird politics of this case encourage anyone to think there has to be more here than two neglectful parents coverup their mistake. And I get that because I cannot explain the politics. However, I also can't find evidence to support a bigger set of players to the point of a government involved pedophile group and an earlier death.



(Pat responding to a comment I left on her blog)

Full post in discussion forum - admin



But I totally agree with her that the Smiths are a major key and the FACT that Kate will not allow Smith-man to be a separate sighting to Tanner-man is evidence that Smith-man is very sensitive and important. If he was not important he could have been allowed as a separate sighting.

Perhaps Smith-man really was Gerry carrying Madeleine? If this was the case, then I would suggest that the 9.15pm encounter between GM and Jez Wilkins was relevant to what happened next. IMO someone or several people (not necessarily Jez, but he could possibly have been the messanger..) pulled the plug earlier in the evening and chaos had descended by 9.15pm. If that had been the case then it is quite possible that GM was quite literally left holding the baby.  Just speculation.

Freedom wrote:This and other quotes from statements have been mentioned before.

They are read out by actors.

Does the accent sound as false to our Irish members as it does to me?

Not a natural accent. It's an actor trying to be 'Oirish'. They sure don't sound like that in Louth!

Some have had issues with the Smith family's evidence so I am not one bit surprised that they have merely assumed this must be a clip of the real Martin Smith.

Here is Tony's reply to Pat's comments on her blog.

Pat Brown's article of 10 April is on her blog and there have been many comments on the blog since, many of them supporting her of course.

One of those commenting referred to my criticisms of her. This was her response. I will make some brief observations below on the first of her three paragraphs:

Pat's response:

"Tony recently sent me a lovely email congratulating me on the recent Australian and UK press. Occasionally, we send emails to each other and both of us look back fondly at our meeting in London. All I can say is, sometimes when people have become heavily invested in a particular belief, they tend to get upset when that belief is threatened. Also, it may be that once one has stood behind a belief for so long and one gets inklings that maybe that maybe the thing one has believed in so strongly might not actually be true, then one fights to maintain that belief. Kind of a normal human thing.

"Also, this may be an issue for some, but, for myself, I don't take it personally if someone has a different theory than me or disagrees with my take on something. Even though this is my field, I recognize a) I could be wrong and b) people with less expertise do not understand things the same way. So, I try to remain friendly and civil if they are willing to do the same. I think Tony Bennett is a straight arrow and has no ulterior motive than to get at the truth. I think Richard Hall is a good filmmaker who has done some really good work (I like his first bit on the McCann case) but I feel his tendency is to find dots that are not meaningful and connect them to create a scenario that is not probable (which is how many conspiracy theories develop).

"I also think the weird politics of this case encourage anyone to think there has to be more here than two neglectful parents coverup their mistake. And I get that because I cannot explain the politics. However, I also can't find evidence to support a bigger set of players to the point of a government involved pedophile group and an earlier death.

My response:

Yes, I did send Pat an unsolicited email a few weeks back, and, well OK, yes, it was 'lovely', really.

She had secured some good publicity this year for the McCann-sceptic point of view, in Australia and the United States, maybe in other places as well. She has been able to do this primarily because she is a recognised Criminal Profiler, with a track record of having commented frequently on national TV.

I credited her, and always have done, for her courage in clearly articulating her view of the case very early on, when virtually no other person in a public positoon would do so. I believe that her outspoken courage may have adversely affected her career and her income. Well, I can certainly relate to that. So I congratulated her on having secured a wide audience for the alternative view of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

My other observation is this. I think in the following words, Pat Brown has actually spoken against herself:

"All I can say is, sometimes when people have become heavily invested in a particular belief, they tend to get upset when that belief is threatened. Also, it may be that once one has stood behind a belief for so long and one gets inklings that maybe that maybe the thing one has believed in so strongly might not actually be true, then one fights to maintain that belief. Kind of a normal human thing".

It is Pat Brown, however, who has been stuck in her twin beliefs that (a) Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May and (b) that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann.

By contrast, and especially following the extraordinary Crimewatch McCann Show in 2013 (with its two dodgy e-fits and its dishonest attempt to replace Tannerman with Crecheman), some of us, like PeterMac, Lizzy HideHo, all the Admin Team here, Richard Hall, many members here, and many McCann-bloggers elsewhere have all had look at a number of key issues afresh.

And as a result we have significantly modified our views on the timeline of the key events of that week.

In a couple of emails over the past few years, I have politely asked Pat to review the evidence e.g. that presented in Richard Hall's films.

It is a matter for regret that we remain so divided over the timeline of events that week. Pat is a courageous lady for whom I have enduring great respect.

..... I think in regards to Pat's belief bit, then she is pretty close on that one (imo).

She believed for a long time that TB was a decent and honest chap. As she says, she can't change her mind now after all these years.

As for the straight arrow bit......

Another day.

Thanks for posting that up, Freedom.

An interesting response. A shame he didn't include my initial question for his forum members to read.

In due course (if I can actually be arsed), then I might actually respond to this latest guff.

I think that it's best left between him and Pat, Andrew.

I thought that she was very diplomatic in her reply!

Freedom wrote:I think that it's best left between him and Pat, Andrew.

I thought that she was very diplomatic in her reply!

She was to be fair. I don't think she wants the hassle or the aggro of what she really believes. My impression anyway.

... Anyway, a quick scroll down on the McTwitter stuff and came across this:

Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos  2h2 hours ago
Replying to @abuseofpower @Heavy_Dave
The Smiths have worked with the #McCann Team since Dec 2007, explained here https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008 … Smithman on their website since May 2009

... How does this man actually get away with spouting all this absolute nonsense all the time? Peddling ridiculous twaddle?

Words fail me. They really do. (and probably a good job as well)

I have just read a post from admin at the other place,  and she says that Martin Smith knew Murat and Gerry???? Ugh?  Can someone point me to where it is documented that Martin Smith knew Gerry McCann, or Robert Murat (I know he only knew him by sight) and I would be very grateful, because I must have missed that somewhere.

The quote says "apparently knew Murat and Gerry".

Yes, I would certainly like to know what reason there is for thinking that Martin Smith knew Gerry, even if only in Irish parlance "to see".

Freedom wrote:The quote says "apparently knew Murat and Gerry".

Yes, I would certainly like to know what reason there is for thinking that Martin Smith knew Gerry, even if only in Irish parlance "to see".

Yes, but how can you say apparently, that is neither here nor there, that is really stating that he did in a roundabout way, otherewise why on earth say that.  Where can I read that he did know him, please someone point me in that direction.... Goodness if true then that really is jaw dropping, but where is the proof??

Yes, I want to know as much as you do what is the basis for saying that!

It is an assertion that is impossible to disprove. I can't prove that I have never met Gerry McCann either.

Surely if there had been any interaction between Martin Smith and Gerry McCann it would have been used to discredit the Smithman sighting? As in "of course I seem familiar, he has met me in XXXX"?

Apparently, used to insinuate when it can't be backed up with fact. Once again Verdi and his chums trying to steer away from Smithman and back to his way of thinking.

Hi Winslow boy!! What does it say on your avatar please?

Bampots wrote:Hi Winslow boy!! What does it say on your avatar please?

Tried to enlarge it but couldn't.
If you suggest on the other site something (ie. Smithman) that differs from the agenda of Verdi and his attack dogs, they have a private conversation between themselves and then they block you with this message. Who does that sound like ?

Bampots wrote:Hi Winslow boy!! What does it say on your avatar please?

Reason
Ban given (date)
Ban length xxxx days
Ban expires Never
Comments

I think.

Having a good early catch up from on here and elsewhere since I was last online yest aft.

Jill pretending she wants to understand Smithman is an absolute classic.

And then I just read this from her:

I want to believe Gerry was Smithman.

I've just literally spluttered my cup of tea all over my laptop.

I do enjoy watching 'her and his' games fold out.

candyfloss wrote:

Freedom wrote:The quote says "apparently knew Murat and Gerry".

Yes, I would certainly like to know what reason there is for thinking that Martin Smith knew Gerry, even if only in Irish parlance "to see".

Yes, but how can you say apparently, that is neither here nor there, that is really stating that he did in a roundabout way, otherewise why on earth say that.  Where can I read that he did know him, please someone point me in that direction.... Goodness if true then that really is jaw dropping, but where is the proof??

I've just read that bit as well. She's smoking the same stuff that TB does. Whatever that is.

Snipped from Jill:

Well, eight people so far have voted in the Poll that 'Smithman is key and the Last Photo is irrelevant', so I'd still like these eight people to convince me of a credible scenario that Smithman is key.

It would be 800 people Jill if you and Tony didn't ban them all

Even Phoebe whose previous posts have evoked thoughts of footwear has said this.


"I think it's a stretch to say that Martin Smith knew Gerry. There is zero evidence to back this up. I do think he knew Murat, exactly as he said - he knew who he was and what he looked like. I also believe he might have known people who actually knew Murat and who felt he was being wrongly accused by the McCann's friends. I still believe he came forward because he knew the man he had seen that night was not Murat. I think they were led in their statements, influenced by descriptions which had already been leaked and anxious to please. Smith's identifying of Gerry in Sept came at the time the media had been luridly reporting for weeks that the McCanns were guilty. Later, Kennedy contacted them. I can imagine how forcefully he vouched for the "poor parents", together with hints of how they intended to sue those who pointed the finger at them. Seeing as Smith was never 100% sure about it being Gerry, he thought the better of sticking his neck out".

chirpyinsect wrote:

Bampots wrote:Hi Winslow boy!! What does it say on your avatar please?

Reason
Ban given   (date)
Ban length   xxxx days
Ban expires  Never
Comments

I think.

Spot on. I really like the use of NEVEERRR, something petulant children would say.

I think that this is a standard Forumotion setting for banning people; it's not just CMoMM.

Being cynical, it wouldn't surprise me if Jill hadn't chucked the 'apparently knew Gerry ' scenario onto that thread to cause a diversion from people posting plausible Smithman theories. Despite her pretence that she 'wants to understand ' (I agree Andrew), it's actually the last thing she wants. See her reaction to whoever posted up Textusa's theory - dismissal, snags (half-baked snags that themselves can be overcome with a brave poster so inclined - Good Old NINA!) and ridicule. Their aim with this is to get people to post their theories so they can be ridiculed and undermined, coupled with a big injection of diversion. Knew Gerry my a**e.

This is a deliberately manufactured attempt to erase Smithman and undermine the Smiths, once more.