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

Well quite, Antonia.

Corroborative evidence..... On John McCann's say so. And that's it. Really?

Now could a 2 year old (28 months was it) actually differentiate for starters let alone actually speak out loud those exact words as per quote....

I don't think so myself.

More nonsense, IMO. Just like whatever comes out of TB's mouth. IMO again.

Well, she could have been as advanced for her age as Madeleine was then - reading Harry Potter books and knowing Pussy Cat Dolls songs - cough.

Was it Amelie or Sean who managed to hear above the normal hullabaloo on a school bus radio Goncalo Amaral saying something about the McCanns that upset them?

Super gifted children don't you know?

I don't know how they had the gall when they made up and spoke about that school bus/radio nonsense...

Anyway, I believe this is the only article in existence where John McCann mentions the Amelie/Maddie's pyjama stuff (happy to be corrected if wrong):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/anguished-parents-struggle-in-sea-of-despair/2007/05/14/1178995077373.html?page=3

Snipped:

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."

I can't find the topic here about the school bus radio nonsense but this is a link to the story - and what a story it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28211250

The bus radio is a good example of how the McCann PR machine works.
People know it's rubbish but would have difficulty proving it and in any case have no access to the media to refute the story.
So, in effect the McCanns, through their mouthpiece can say almost anything with impunity.

candyfloss wrote: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.

 

Given that it would seem that the McCanns and their friends were not really looking for Madeleine after she disappeared. And given that the early poster photo showed a girl that looked much younger than nearly four (and much younger than the girl in 'the last photo') then I presume that the pjs held up by the McCanns were NOT the pjs that Madeleine was wearing when she went missing. d

I doubt Madeleine was wearing pjs at all at the time she was removed from the resort. I think that David Payne's brain leak might suggest she was wearing something more akin to a nightdress (the angels comment) which was white. This would be suggestive of a certain scenario of course.

If (as seems likely, imo) Madeleine was not wearing those pjs when she was removed from Ocean Club, then who did wear these pjs (if anyone)?  

What is the significance of these particular pjs? If the kiko theory has any validity, could these have been the pjs worn by a substitute child? Were these the pjs that were supposed to have been spotted in the (staged/faked) abduction?

Or what? The McCanns' modus operandi would seem to be deception imo (or at least that's what it seems to me). These pjs are a major exhibit. Were they just to support the Jane Tanner sighting or is there more to it than that? Just theorising and speculation and my opinions.

Does anyone here think that the mcs only took one pair of pjs for Madeleine like over yonder?

dogs don't lie wrote:Does anyone here think that the mcs only took one pair of pjs for Madeleine like over yonder?

No chance.

Imo etc.

Andrew wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Does anyone here think that the mcs only took one pair of pjs for Madeleine like over yonder?

No chance.

Imo etc.

What mother would take just one pair of pj's for a small child.  The child could be sick all over them, or do what children do.  How do you know you could dry them in time for next day if it poured with rain etc..  Probably took at least 3 pairs I would think.  Definitely 2 so that one on and one off in the wash in case of accident on or in them.

I would have taken just 2 pairs for a 4 yr old and maybe 5 pairs between the twins.

Facebook post and promotional video here from Pat Brown..



PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 6h6 hours ago  

 
Promo video (a few posts down) for Sunday Nights special on Madeleine McCann of which I am a part. #mccann https://www.facebook.com/7sundaynight/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf …

Tony Bennett better not be watching if she'll be discussing her thoughts on Smithman.

That won't do his blood pressure any good.

Snipped from the link:

Sunday 8.30pm | The disappearance of Madeleine McCann shocked the world.
The three-year-old vanished from her bed at her family's holiday apartment in Portugal in 2007 sparking a frantic search that would span a decade. The case was never solved.
In an exclusive Sunday Night investigation, Rahni Sadler speaks to those at the heart of the mystery; Madeleine's parents, the lead investigator, the forensic scientist, the criminal profiler...
This Sunday 8.30pm: Sunday Night's groundbreaking television event reveals major new developments in the case that has everyone asking... What happened to Maddie? #SN7

Eh....

Rahni Sadler speaks to those at the heart of the mystery; Madeleine's parents, the lead investigator....

Kate, Gerry and Goncalo in the same room?

I very much doubt that.

I wonder if that's a mistake. I really can't imagine the McCanns participating in a programme with sceptics.

I'm sure that Pat will post a link on Facebook afterwards so we'll know then.

P.S. I've just watched the trailer and it looks as if a clip from an old interview is being used in which the McCanns are asked if they killed their daughter.

I think, it might be possible that K&G and Dr. Amaral were interviewed separately and that will be combined in the transmission. Surely, if true, K&G wouldn't have given an interview, if they'd known their Nemesis would figure there too ... I'm looking forward to seeing the result ;-)

ETA I just saw your PS, Freedom. Nonetheless, I'm interested to see the result. The Australians are rather vigilant at the moment, so to speak ...

What's channel7? I wanna watch it

It's an Australian one.

Freedom wrote:It's an Australian one.

Thanks Freedom, YouTube then hopefully.

One possibility I thought of, if these were Madeleine's pyjamas, the ones KM busily washed the 'tea stain' out of on the morning of May 3, passing them off as Amelie's keeps them from being an object of attention for other reasons, such as possible traces of blood perhaps? Or they could be another child's but they lend weight to JT's sighting in which she remembered a great deal about an encounter she gave no significance to at the time. Props are important, they keep the focus were you want it to be. What is the point of holding up pyjamas at a press conference? If you saw a small child being carried in potentially suspicious circumstances you would report it regardless of whatever she was wearing, you wouldn't even remember this detail unless you had reason to believe it was significant at the time. As parents you would probably want the focus to be on the big picture, not clothing which could easily be changed or covered. At the time of these press conferences, the focus should have been on any potential sighting, not just the night Madeleine disappeared. It's a completely hollow act IMO.

Freedom wrote:I wonder if that's a mistake. I really can't imagine the McCanns participating in a programme with sceptics.

I'm sure that Pat will post a link on Facebook afterwards so we'll know then.

P.S. I've just watched the trailer and it looks as if a clip from an old interview is being used in which the McCanns are asked if they killed their daughter.

This looks like the interview from which the clip is taken.

Wasn't there a mention by Kate of a pair of pyjamas awaiting Madeleine's return lying folded on her bed and there was also something about a dirty pair being transported in the car which was given as the reason for dna transference? So along with the "abducted" pair that makes 3. There was mention of wishing M had been wearing her long sleeved pjs which could be one of those I mentioned.
Also TB is fixated on what Amelie said about the pjs being Maddie's but at no point was it mentioned that it was the Eeyore ones. It could have been the long sleeved ones or even the other pair taken on holiday. Talk about a narrative being fitted to a theory.
My theory on the pjs is that the child carried by Smithman was wearing long sleeved ones so they had to describe the "abducted"ones as short sleeved to distance them. I somehow doubt M was even wearing pjs so they had to say the ones held up were A's because they couldn't afford to dump them in case they were found minus the child that was supposed to have been wearing them.
I think it is pretty conclusive that the version held up in the press conference would have been far too big for A. Washing them was to get rid of M's dna ( I'm betting she washed top and bottoms) then she pretended the pjs were A's.

I agree with this theory chirpyinsect- and KM had to admit to washing them and invented an excuse.

dogs don't lie wrote:

Freedom wrote:It's an Australian one.

Thanks Freedom, YouTube then hopefully.

Last time I tried to watch Au Channel 7 I had to use a vpn. I used a 30 day trial of Cyberghost - we were in Germany and used it to watch UK and Australian tv. It worked well and I just cancelled the subscription without charge when I got back from holiday.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/35083433/madeleine-mccann-gone/


Advert on Yahoo....toooo!

An excellent post, nicked from the other thread. Will stick it here as well...

A very good post by Ben Thompson - just what everybody is thinking and saying apart from CMOMM

JillyCL @JillyCL
Excellent blog by Ben Thompson!  https://www.facebook.com/groups/Justice

Richard D Hall, all well and good, but...
I see we have another instalment from Richard D Hall, and yet again it is a mixed bag of fact, and wild conjecture. Now before I get lynched, it may interest people to know, that the vast majority of Richard's 'research', comes straight from Tony Bennett. Tony is well known for being rather economical with the truth, and has for many years led people down many a rabbit hole, bending the facts as he feeds them from his large wooden spoon. Quite how this man is allowed to get away with commenting on the McCann case, after a promise to the courts, and to the McCanns that he would stop, could well explain why he so gleefully rubbishes the Smith sighting, Pamela Fenn's statement, and as with Richard D Hall's latest video, points all ten of his meddling fingers at Robert Murat.
Before I go on, it's worth recalling some names of others who were also pointing their grubby digits at Mr Murat, namely:
Clarence Mitchell - Kate and Gerry's paid liar.
Lori Campbell - Journalist, and friend of Kate McCann.
Jane Tanner - Friend of Kate and Gerry - provider of multiple descriptions of a man ruled out by Scotland Yard, and the PJ.
Russell O'Brien - Friend of Kate and Gerry - no alibi for the time Madeleine was reportedly 'taken'.
Fiona Payne - Close friend of Kate - wife of the exeedingly dodgy David Payne.
Rachael Oldfield - Friend of Kate and Gerry - wife of Matt Oldfield, the man who checked on Madeleine, only saw the twins, and decided that was suffice.
Stephen Birch - pathological liar.
Kate McCann - Wild eyed crazy lady - proven liar - owner of eau de dead body clothing - refuser of police questioning - former arguido (not cleared) - and director of the McCanns' fund.
Quite a bunch eh.
The big question of course, is that IF - as Bennett and Hall do their best to convince us - Robert Murat was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, then why would the above team McCanners throw him under the bus?
IF Murat was involved, and was found guilty, then wouldn't he return the favour, and blow the whistle on Kate and Gerry to A: gain a favourable sentence in court, and B: pay them back for setting him up?
In his latest video, Hall promotes claims that Robert Murat had sexual relations with a cat. There is a statement in the files from a former friend with an axe to grind, that accuses Murat of this, but does that make it true?
I'm no expert on human to cat sexual activity, but knowing the behaviour and skills of cats, I'm pretty sure there would only be one winner in the battle of amorous perversions V versatile feline armed with claws and teeth, not to mention the anatomical impossibilities. Indeed the very notion was knocked out of the park in the following statement:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNDON-POLLARD.htm
Another of Hall's (cough Bennett's) favourite lies, is that on the 2nd May 2007, and between the hours of 3:44pm for Robert Murat, and 3:49pm for Gerry McCann the mobile phones of both men were completely switched off for 32 hours. Again this is nonsense; the phones were activated several times during the said period, as shown in the files:
Robert Murat's phone activated at 16:11 May 2nd, 09:19 May 3rd, and 11:31am May 3rd. It's all in the files, and can be found on the link below:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/…/04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_1064.jpg
So yet again, Bennett is lying in order to implicate Robert Murat.
Question is - why?
As for Robert Murat being an MI5 agent, and working for Martin Brunt of Sky News, if you believe that, then you'll believe anything.
I kept quiet - admittedly for too long - as Richard D Hall and Tony Bennett clasped hands, and skipped along a mutually beneficial road together, but no more.
The videos of Hall are littered with misinformation and agenda fuelled Bennett baloney. If you must watch, do so with caution.