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

Mimi wrote:

Freedom wrote:

Luna wrote:@Freedom, the thread has disappeared, so members only can read.  Must have become fractious.

It's back again. I copy this remark from an unnamed moderator without comment.......

@pennylane wrote:
Added by a Mod:  The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

Just proves that their forum is the `Ministry Of Truth`.

Can you imagine Candyfloss insisting on all posters sticking to her own thinking and bullying or banning people that disagree with her?

Haha Mimi, I was just thinking about it

I wonder how long pennylane and SuspiciousMinds will survive. P.S. The posts have been whooshed now. 14.15.

Post by pennylane Today at 12:11

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:

Added by a Mod:  The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

Suzy already answered all the other points in this post very eloquently, so I won't answer those again. But I will take issue with the statement above.

1. If people contributing to the thread are continually asked to state why they think that the Smith sighting may be genuine and relevant, then they are going to tell you why they think the Smith sighting may be genuine and relevant. There is a possibility that those thoughts may not concur with your own. Shocking, I know, but true.

2. The Smith sighting is not the "basis" of any of the 'May 3' theories. The fact (yes, fact!) that Mr. Smith claimed to see someone and later thought it might have been Gerry is an interesting sideshow, that tends to support the theory that the McCanns were involved. If it was Gerry, it's huge. If it wasn't Gerry, then shrug. So what? The 'May 3' theory does not get blown out of the water because of that and there is no need to 'fixate' on it. Neither is there any need to jump on it and assume that Mr. Smith had a more nefarious purpose for making his statement.

3. The piece of evidence you really, really need to get past is the statements from the nannies that say Madeleine was alive on May 3rd. That is the true sticking point. The 'alleged, unproven fact' that the nannies were lying on behalf of the McCanns is a whopper - and it actually DOES blow the 'Died-on-Sunday' theory out of the water. You cannot criticise people for incorporating one witness statement into their theories, while blindly ignoring or trashing inconvenient statements that don't fit your own.

4. I know I am in a minority on this site. I don't contribute very often, as I don't really enjoy getting jumped on from all sides and pummelled into submission, and I don't have time to sit here and answer every angry and aggressive response. I don't know what happened to Madeleine. But neither do you. None of us believe the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing - we are all intelligent enough to look beyond what we have been fed by the media. That is something that should be respected - especially by a so-called Mod.

Pennylane wrote:

Spot on SM! roses

pennylane

candyfloss wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:There's no way would they take a pic of her actual pjs, still damp from washing out the stain, in apt 5a on the actual blue couch were Eddie and Keela alerted!

Here's the proof that the photo was taken by the McCanns (probably Kate) and that the photo was passed to Leicester police (post from orginal thread Candy linked to above):

Dee Coy wrote:

Here's how the PJ got it:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm



Oddly, an 'add on' to a collection of photos given to Leicester police by Kate McCann on the 8 May 2007:

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENT
INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY
I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Logos. 

This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER" They saw a man on the boat. but it was not the same man that she had in her vision.

This is very important to Kate. I spoke to Glen Pounder if he could make some enqs with regards to the boat.
He has done this and the boat is registered to a Canadian National called Bruce Cook. Glen has told me that George Reyes at the police Stn  is now dealing with the matter with record to doing dvc checks etc.

I spoke to Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me photographs of a man who has been on the boat. This is not the man the woman had in her vision.
This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enq's into the matter. Once the enq's have been completed can we please let her know the results.
Thanks 

So this photo was taken at the same time as the visit to Logos Marina, I would conclude. I can only assume it was included with the marina photos in error, as the report makes no reference to the pyjama picture, merely describing the Logos 'vision' and the boat.

Therefore it would appear conclusive that the photo was taken on Kate's camera prior to 8 May. When did the visit to Logos take place?

Thank you for that Dee Coy, but my guess would be it is a photo probably taken by the PJ and has found it's way into the wrong file, as simple as that?  That is why it is not mentioned at all in the write up.

You could be right, Candyfloss.  I believe ir is the McCann's way of bringing their photo to he attention of the PJ via Leceister police.

Here's Dr Martin Roberts' thoughts on the origin:

Dr Martin Roberts wrote: Alongside a suite of photographs taken at Lagos Marina by Kate McCann is an introductory memo, written by DC Markley of Leicester Police on or about the 8 May and headed up, 'Information from the Family'. Here also one finds the only copy (in black and white) of the McCanns' official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas (Outros Apensos Vol. II - Apenso VIII, p.342). Rather than its being a PJ production, afterwards passed to the McCanns, it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07).

I would wonder then Dee Coy why it is not mentioned at all even as an post script to say that it had been added by the McCanns. There is no mention of it, so again it is pure conjecture and guesswork, but as you say maybe.

Just to clarify! Just because I believe Martin Roberts is correct in his deductions regarding the pyjamas, does NOT mean I endorse TB's ridiculous leap of faith to diss the Smith sighting using Dr Roberts' work.

To say this pair of pyjamas was photographed and retained by the McCanns means the Smiths cannot have seen a man who looked like GM carrying a girl in a pair of pyjamas who was blonde and asleep is nothing short of preposterous and underlines how TB connects suppositions, half-facts and dubious extrapolations, glued together with a generous dollop of 'leap of faith' to create his rickety theories.

If this has already been posted and I missed it, apologies - here is the Dr Roberts article:

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

candyfloss wrote:I would wonder then Dee Coy why it is not mentioned at all even as an post script to say that it had been added by the McCanns.  There is no mention of it, so again it is pure conjecture and guesswork, but as you say maybe.

I don't know why. But the fact that there is no note does not preclude that the photo came into possession of the PJ via Leceister police. Perhaps it was LP's way of sneaking it into the files! (joke)

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I would wonder then Dee Coy why it is not mentioned at all even as an post script to say that it had been added by the McCanns.  There is no mention of it, so again it is pure conjecture and guesswork, but as you say maybe.

I don't know why. But the fact that there is no note does not preclude that the photo came into possession of the PJ via Leceister police. Perhaps it was LP's way of sneaking it into the files!   (joke)

How did Leceister police get it, when the McCanns were in Portugal where the photo was taken?

Bit lost with all this, but to me it looks like the photo of the PJ's was taken from this press conference.  I would assume it was pinned to the back board (BLUE) just before or after the press converence to allow the press/media to take more photos of them for the newpapers and files etc.

 

candyfloss wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I would wonder then Dee Coy why it is not mentioned at all even as an post script to say that it had been added by the McCanns.  There is no mention of it, so again it is pure conjecture and guesswork, but as you say maybe.

I don't know why. But the fact that there is no note does not preclude that the photo came into possession of the PJ via Leceister police. Perhaps it was LP's way of sneaking it into the files!   (joke)

How did Leceister police get it, when the McCanns were in Portugal where the photo was taken?

I thought there was a Leicester police presence in Luz in the early days?  I'm guessing he received the Lagos pictures together with the pyjama one. Eta DCS Bob Small.

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENTINFORMATION FROM THE FAMILYI spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Logos. 

candyfloss wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I would wonder then Dee Coy why it is not mentioned at all even as an post script to say that it had been added by the McCanns.  There is no mention of it, so again it is pure conjecture and guesswork, but as you say maybe.

I don't know why. But the fact that there is no note does not preclude that the photo came into possession of the PJ via Leceister police. Perhaps it was LP's way of sneaking it into the files!   (joke)

How did Leceister police get it, when the McCanns were in Portugal where the photo was taken?

The Famliy Liaison Officer, I suppose

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I would wonder then Dee Coy why it is not mentioned at all even as an post script to say that it had been added by the McCanns.  There is no mention of it, so again it is pure conjecture and guesswork, but as you say maybe.

I don't know why. But the fact that there is no note does not preclude that the photo came into possession of the PJ via Leceister police. Perhaps it was LP's way of sneaking it into the files!   (joke)

How did Leceister police get it, when the McCanns were in Portugal where the photo was taken?

I thought there was a Leicester police presence in Luz in the early days?  I'm guessing he received the Lagos pictures together with the pyjama one. Eta DCS Bob Small.  

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENTINFORMATION FROM THE FAMILYI spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Logos. 

Yes, but the photos are of the Lagos Marina, so had did Leicestershire police get them.  As froggy says perhaps the liason officer passed them on, but I am not convinced.

joyce1938 wrote:I am sure that at one time it was said that depending what year they were bought ,would be same ,but different fastenings.the one held up and photographed was closed at back with one small button ,I think it looks like. But another style was anopening ,in another place .So I ask did they both have samecoloured p j 's but purchessed at different time ,so that could tell who had which from time bought?  Did anyone else see this ? along time ago mind you . joyce1938

Yes, Joyce, I seem to remember it was dependent on the age. The smaller pj's had the button on the back & the bigger ones (Madeleines?) just pulled over the head.

Pat Brown thread re Smithman being the key has gone again on CMoMM?  Is that the one where Suspicious Minds had their say?

No, I think that was on the Smithman 100, sorry 10, topic.

joyce1938 wrote:I am sure that at one time it was said that depending what year they were bought ,would be same ,but different fastenings.the one held up and photographed was closed at back with one small button ,I think it looks like. But another style was anopening ,in another place .So I ask did they both have samecoloured p j 's but purchessed at different time ,so that could tell who had which from time bought?  Did anyone else see this ? along time ago mind you . joyce1938

I recall the same Joyce

Itss strange really ,each time the pajamas were discussed ,I had a old memory that kept rising up each time this subject appeared. Then I suddenly saw the pic. again with a back fastner ,and recalled that there had been other times when things cropped up ,and no one seemed to question it ?I think it really was done with a lot when I was on the mcf.few years ago,sent off with a group of others ,and we did not have any explanation . of what we had said etc. anyway it came back and I am happy to know that more here will know about somethings we look for ,and the occasions we can look at and realize a bit more.joyce1938

candyfloss wrote:Interesting that Blue Bag is asking the same questions and has posted up a photo that actually appeared in the Daily Mail when released with a BLACK background, so it begs the question, how did this background suddenly turn blue to match the sofa?  Here is the photo from the Mail..




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html

Martin Roberts does speak of the mail differing "but" if you look at the loose threads they would appear to be the same albeit with the background changed! He nowhere implys he does try back up his thought with reference....i mean take from it what you will.....if there was a photgraph taken after the PJ one or before we should quite rightly ask why....that iss why we all assemble here....or have i missed the point?

40 very good and interesting comments now on Pat's blog, worth taking the time to read...

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/

candyfloss wrote:40 very good and interesting comments now on Pat's blog, worth taking the time to read...

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/

Very interesting, she also thinks as I do, if it was planned, it would've happened in the middle of the night.

Snipped from Bluebell's link on the other thread that is applicable here:

(6) Best Sighting of Potential Abduction Ignored

When one person sees a thing, it can be cast into doubt. When an entire family sees a thing, it’s a little harder to say it didn’t happen.

Yet on the very night Madeline McCann was abducted, just a few minutes before Kate McCann ran howling into the streets, from a vantage point just 250 metres from the apartment, with a restaurant receipt to prove they were there at the time of the sighting, the Smith family claim to have seen a man carrying a child away, and have been totally ignored by the concerned McCanns.

This sighting got zero media coverage, zero attention, and was not announced at a press conference, despite being totally consistent under police prodding.

The problem? Well, the man the family described fits Gerry McCann – right down to the buttons on his trousers.

Worse yet, the description of the child matches Madeleine!

This is suspicious enough, but when taken together with the relentless promotion of the ‘Tanner Sighting’, a supposed witness account with more holes in it than a Swiss cheese, it becomes a little more than suspicious.

Why promote the hell out of a flawed account which is totally and irrevocably incorrect, while ignoring a solid, consistent and verifiable lead?

Hmmmm…. where might that lead, lead?

Deleted, see my post below.

Your post moved to discussion forum poster, I did not post the replies to Pat - people can read for themselves.

Just read TB saying Amelia saying 'Maddies jammies' is part of the corroborative evidence..... eh?  what?  A 2 year old child allegedly saying that. Firstly I find it hard to believe and secondly we don't even know if she did say it?  Is it on video anywhere?  John McCann told us allegedly, second hand hearsay quotes that's all.  So a 2 year old might perhaps think they were Maddies because they looked the same, but it certainly does not mean they were the actual pyjamas of Madeleine.

candyfloss wrote:Just read TB saying Amelia saying 'Maddies jammies' is part of the corroborative evidence..... eh?  what?  A 2 year old child allegedly saying that. Firstly I find it hard to believe and secondly we don't even know if she did say it?  Is it on video anywhere?  John McCann told us allegedly, second hand hearsay quotes that's all.  So a 2 year old might perhaps think they were Maddies because they looked the same, but it certainly does not mean they were the actual pyjamas of Madeleine.

A two year old child's alleged words is corroborative evidence but a 12 years olds sworn statement is not! The 12 year old however is Irish and her father is a 'friend' of Murat so her evidence must therefore be very dodgy......