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

Some good comments there indeed.

As I mentioned before, I have doubts about the cat statement. Even if we can explain away the reference to working with RM when he was a child as a translation error, surely if someone was capable of such awful behaviour, other people would have knowledge of it and be prepared to come forward and say what they know.

Sunday Night added 3 new photos.
1 hr ·
Sunday 8.30 | Ten years ago, Madeleine Beth McCann vanished without a trace from a holiday resort in Portugal.
At the centre of this baffling case are her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann. To some, tragic victims. To others, negligent parents. Or even worse, cold-blooded killers.
Gone: A Sunday Night Major Investigation airs on Sunday at 8.30pm on Seven and PLUS7 Live.

Sunday Night
4 hrs ·
Set your reminders - this is a Facebook Live segment you don't want to miss!
Rahni Sadler will be live from 12pm tomorrow ahead of Sunday's investigation into the mystery of Madeleine McCann.
Submit your questions for Rahni now by commenting below or sending us a private message.

Sunday Night
7 hrs ·
The photographs are as instantly recognisable as they are haunting; three-year-old Madeleine McCann frozen in time, her angelic face the picture of innocence.
Madeleine vanished from her bed 10 years ago in a mystery that has captivated the world and sparked dozens of theories about what occurred on the night of May 3, 2007.
Now, a fresh line of inquiry could finally tell us what happened to little Maddie.
Gone: A Sunday Night Major Investigation airs on Sunday at 8.30pm on Channel 7.

... From that Facebook link.

Pat Brown in a studio set up down the street, or the McCanns?  What does she mean?




Alladin Noons‏ @AlladinNoons · 38m
 

Nice little jaunt down under for #McCann



ProfilerPatB  





Replying to @AlladinNoons @melania9021

All the way down the street to a hotel where a studio was set up. #mccann #nokangaroos





Alladin Noons‏
@AlladinNoons  




Replying to @ProfilerPatB @melania9021

Do you know if this will air in UK Pat or are we not allowed to see it here #mccann #anywallabies ?







PAT BROWN‏
@ProfilerPatB  


Replying to @AlladinNoons @melania9021

It is geoblocked outside of Australia but I will post a link later. #mccann #SundayNight

We shall see what we shall see!

I just can't imagine the McCanns appearing in such a programme. It's my guess that old clips from the 2011 Australian interview will be used.

I think Pat means she's in a hotel near her (in the US) and it's being done via video-link.

Hence 'no kangaroo'

I can't see the Mc's being in Oz either.

Freedom wrote:We shall see what we shall see!

I just can't imagine the McCanns appearing in such a programme. It's my guess that old clips from the 2011 Australian interview will be used.

Hi, is there a map of where the smith sighting was, and the direction the Abducter was travelling, cheers.

.... If you google 'smith sighting map', then a fair few should come up.

I wonder if TB will ever be invited into a TV studio, to elaborate on his numerous Smithman threads and polls, to try and convice Joe Public that the Smiths are liars.

I'm surprised Team McCann haven't wheeled him out for that. Yet.

Andrew wrote:.... If you google 'smith sighting map', then a fair few should come up.

Cheers

So what changed with Pat Brown and the way they talk about her over there.  Verdi saying this morning anything to further her career, TB accused her of talking rubbish, she is not afforded any respect at all, yet she is a trained profiler and knows what she is talking about,  and she was a member of CMoMM (maybe still is), and was the best thing since sliced bread but now??  So what has changed, I don't have to phone a friend on that one.

It's very simple.

Pat believes in the Smiths.

And it's imperative on CMoMM that the Smiths are liars.

Say no more.

Moved this here as very relevant, with all this talk of the Smith sighting and last photo, imo a great piece by Pat Brown.

Time to remind the troops of the truth of the matter....



SMITHMAN 12:  Can anyone who still believes that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine satisfactorily answer ANY of these 60 Questions ?

Post by Verdi Today at 2:04

By Tony Bennett.

SMITHMAN sighting

For anyone who still believes that the Smith family, at around 10pm on Thursday 3 May, saw Gerry McCann carrying the body of his daughter down towards the beach from his holiday apartment

(or that he was carrying a ‘decoy’, as some suggest, or that it was another member of the ‘Tapas 7’, as others suggest)

Can you satisfactorily answer ANY of these questions:

1 Why would anyone whose daughter had died recently (whether hours or days earlier) be so bone-headed as to carry her openly through the streets of a popular tourist resort

2 Why would he do so at the very moment that his wife and friends were raising the alarm at the Ocean Club?

3 Where could Gerry McCann have hidden the body?

4 How could he have both hidden the body, buried or stored it somewhere, and have been able to return to be seen around his apartment and the Ocean Club minutes later?

5 Why did the Smiths give so many differing accounts of the impact of having seen this man carrying a child? (anything from ‘quite normal to see men carrying their toddlers home late at night’ to ‘it was a disturbing encounter’

6 Why did not one of them – bearing in mind that the news of Madeleine’s disappearance was headline news in Portugal, Ireland and around the world - suggest contacting the police at any time before the day Robert Murat was made an ‘arguido’ (15 May)?

7 Is it credible (as claimed by the Smiths) that Martin Smith only acted to contact the police after his son Peter ’phoned him on 16 May (the day after Murat was declared a suspect) and asked: “Dad, am I dreaming, or did we see a man carrying a child on the day Madeleine was reported missing?”

8 Why was Martin Smith so adamant that a man he saw in the dark for barely a second or two could not possibly be Robert Murat?

9 How well did Martin Smith know Robert Murat?

Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat:

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008: “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

‘I’ve known him for years’ - Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.

Which one of these versions, if any, is the truth?

10. What is the explanation for all three Smiths giving the Portuguese Police on 26 May 2016, in Portimao, a description of the man they said they had seen, which exactly matched in almost every detail those given by Jane Tanner of ‘Tannerman’ and by Nuno Lourenco of ‘Sagresman’/Wojcek Krokowski? (including cloth clothes, ‘classic shoes’ and ‘did not look like a tourist’)

11 According to Martin Smith, his wife Mary Smith actually spoke to the man. So why did she not accompany her husband and her children to Portugal to give the police her evidence?

12 In Martin Smith’s statement to the PJ, 26 May, he told them: “On 4 May, I thought it could have been Madeleine”. So why did he not report the sighting for a further 12 days? He and his family never reported the sighting until 16 May

13 Why did the family, immediately after having a meal with drinks at the Dolphin restaurant, go to Kelly’s Bar for even more drinks?

14 Why could none of the staff at Kelly’s Bar remember this party of nine coming in?

15 Which of the four bar bills between 9.30pm and 10.00pm Thursday 3 May, if any, was theirs?

16 In what precise way was the man supposed to be carrying the child? – the Smiths’ accounts differ

17 Aoife Smith said she thought she saw buttons on the man’s trousers. Can it be ruled out that Aoife Smith had, before 26 May, seen a photograph of Gerry McCann wearing trousers with buttons?

18 Did the man lower his head? Peter Smith to the PJ: “He did not try to hide his face nor did he lower his gaze”. But Martin Smith said: “He put his head down”.

19 How much did each of them see of the child? Aoife Smith said she “didn’t see the child's face because she was lying vertically against the man’s left shoulder…” But Peter Smith says he was able to see the girls’ face: “The girl was asleep; her eyelids were closed”.

20 Martin Smith said: “The child was in a deep sleep”. How did he know she was in a ‘deep’ sleep?

21 Was the child wrapped in a blanket? The Daily Mail (3 Jan 2008) told us: “An Irish holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared”. Yet the Smiths in their statements to the Portuguese police say the child was dressed only in pyjamas and was not covered by a blanket.

22 What was the effect on them of seeing the man carrying a child?

Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’ (Report, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith (audio recording in an Irish voice for McCanns’ website, May 2011) “I thought they were father and daughter, so I - I wasn’t so suspicious”

But in 2008 Martin Smith said: “…the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused my suspicions. The man put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual… (Media reports, 3 Jan 2008)

Martin Smith: “I heard that a kidnapping had happened in the village of Luz. We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News…it had a terrible effect on [the children]. They all wanted to sleep in the same room as us until we went home on the Wednesday”.

Which one of the statements (if any) is the truth?

23 Different reasons were given by the Smiths for the 13-day delay in reporting their sighting:

Reason 1: My son ’phoned me up two weeks after we got back and asked “Am I dreaming, or did we meet a man carrying a child…?” (Statements of Martin Smith and Peter Smith to the news media)

Reason 2: “We only reported our sighting because we eventually found out about the exact time of the sighting” (statement of Peter Smith)

Reason 3: The descriptions of the man matched those of Jane Tanner (Daily Mail 3 Jan 2008)

Reason 4: ‘The Portuguese police were too busy’ (claim by Martin Smith reported by the Daily Mirror, 16 Oct 2013, two days after the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special) [NOTE: This was the first time Martin Smith had made this claim in 6½ years]

24 Again, which of those four versions, if any, is the truth?

25 How can we explain these contradictions by Martin Smith in what he saw of the man’s clothes above the waist?

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2007: “He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same”

Martin Smith to Irish police officer, 30 January 2008: “He was wearing a dark jacket or blazer”

Martin Smith statement audio recording put on McCanns’ website, May 2009: “I can’t recall what he was wearing, apart from a pair of beige trousers”.

26 Why did Martin Smith delay by 11 days (9 to 20 September) reporting his belief that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen carrying a child?

27 Exactly how credible is it that Martin Smith, four months after allegedly seeing a man carrying a child - when it was dark, there was weak street lighting and he only saw him for a few seconds at most - could be 60% to 80% certain that the man was Gerry McCann, based only on the way he was carrying the child out of an aeroplane (and bearing in mind that most parents having to carry a child would also carry sleeping or very tired child on their shoulder as Gerry was doing)?

28 Why on earth, if Martin Smith was now so sure it was Gerry McCann who had been carrying that blonde child dressed only in pyjamas, would he even think of speaking to Metodo 3 and Brian Kennedy (as reported in the British press on 3 & 4 January 2008?)

29 Still more strange, why would he agree to start working for the McCann Team by agreeing to work with Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton?

30 Did Martin Smith tell the McCann Team at any stage that he still thought the man he saw was Gerry McCann?

31 Why did Martin Smith feel it necessary to ask a solicitor to demand that an Irish newspaper must remove from an article any reference to his association with Robert Murat?

32 Martin Smith and his family, so we are told, helped Henri Exton to draw up some efits of the man they said they saw. How could they possibly be able to do so given that (a) they last saw the man a year or more previously (b) they only saw him for a few seconds at the most (c) it was dark (d) the street lighting was ‘weak (e) some of them did not even see his face properly and (f) each of the three of them who gave statements to the Portuguese police agreed that there would be no chance at all of them ever recognising the man if they ever saw him again?

33 Why did they draw up two efits of different-looking men? One of them…

looks older

has a ‘fatter’ face

has a rectangular face (the other has a triangular-shaped face)

has curly hair, apparently brushed back (the other has short, straight hair)

has a much shorter nose

has a much bigger chin, and

has smaller ears.

The other one has none of those features.

34 Why could they not agree what he looked like?

35 Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he agree to take part at all in drawing up any efits?

36 Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he not authorise an efit that looked exactly like him?

37 Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he and his wife make statements urging the police to ‘find the abductor’?

38 Why, if Martin Smith still believed that the man he said he saw was Gerry McCann, did he offer his sympathy to the McCanns?

39 The Smith family sighting was featured prominently, twice, in the Channel 4/Mentorn Media ‘Mockumentary’ of May 2009. Did the Smiths know about – and then consent – to their sighting featuring in the documentary, despite Martin Smith (allegedly) still believing that he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007?

40 Did he approve the contents of what was said about his family’s sighting in the film?

41 If not, did he ever protest publicly about it?

42 Immediately after the C4/Mentorn Media documentary was shown, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second summary of Martin Smith’s alleged sighting, read out in an Irish accent (not by Martin Smith). Was Martin Smith told about this, or did he become aware?

43 If and when he did become aware, did he consent to his sighting being used on the McCanns’ website?

44 If he did become aware, was he also aware that after he had changed his initial story about the age of the man he said he saw from ‘35 to 40’ to ‘40’, was Martin Smith aware that in this audio recording the age had been changed again to ’34-35’? Did Martin Smith agree to that second change of the man’s age?

45 If yes, why did he do so? If not, why did he never protest publicly?

46 When Dr Kate McCann published her book, ‘madeleine’, on 11 May 2011, seven pages of her book mentioned Smithman. Three of these seven pages consisted of an itemised list of the ‘striking similarities’ between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’. Was Martin Smith consulted about this before the proofs went to the printers?

47 Again, given that in September 2007 Martin Smith was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007, did Martin Smith approve of his sighting being quoted on 7 pages of Kate McCann’s book? – in support of a ‘stranger’ abductor?

48 Did Martin Smith object in any way to his sighting being used in a book which effectively denied that he had seen Gerry McCann - and which was pointing the finger at the ‘Tannerman’ sighting?

49 Why did Martin Smith meet with DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, in 2012?

50 What did he discuss with him?

51 Was he told that his sighting would be the ‘top’ feature of a BBC programme?

52 And did he consent, despite apparently believing that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen on 3 May 2007?

53 Martin Smith again met with DCI Andy Redwood, Head of the Met Police’s Operation Grange, in 2013. Again, did he consent, despite apparently believing that Gerry McCann was the man he had seen on 3 May 2007?

54 On either, or each, of those occasions, did Martin Smith say something like: “Look Mr Redwood, I saw Gerry McCann carrying that child at 10pm on 3 May. I object to you using my sighting to suggest it was someone else”?

55 If not, why not?

56 Did Martin Smith agree with the BBC for his sighting and his/his family’s two efits to be used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show?

57 If he did agree, why did he agree, if he was sure that he had seen Gerry McCann on 3 May 2007?

58 There was a blaze of pre-programme hype and then innumerable BBC trailers promoting the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show, transmitted to an audience of 6.7 million viewers. Did Martin Smith consent to these two efits, allegedly having been drawn up by him and members of his family, being shown?

59 How credible is that after nine years of working closely with the McCanns and then Operation Grange (2008-2017), that the Smiths would suddenly tell Irish reporter Gemma O’Doherty: “I have never retracted my view that I saw Gerry McCann that night”?

60 How credible a witness would Martin Smith be if put on a witness stand to testify that in his judgment he was 60% to 80% sure he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007? How well would that evidence stand up under cross-examination?

Yawn

I shall read it the next time I'm having trouble sleeping.

So same old and the same question repeated over time and again as this example   here....   

(snipped from post)
56 Did Martin Smith agree with the BBC for his sighting and his/his family’s two efits to be used in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show?



58 There was a blaze of pre-programme hype and then innumerable BBC trailers promoting the BBC Crimewatch McCann Show, transmitted to an audience of 6.7 million viewers. Did Martin Smith consent to these two efits, allegedly having been drawn up by him and members of his family, being shown?


In answer to the above question and I really shouldn't bother wasting my time, do people know how the police work?  I wonder sometimes.

The police have these efits in the files from various sources as we know, the PJ files, the PI files etc.  they certainly don't know permission in order to use them.  So it makes no difference if Martin Smith consented or not, they are in the files and the police would have every right to use them... just the same as we are using all the photos and evidence from the PJ files and elsewhere.

Freedom wrote:Time to remind the troops of the truth of the matter....

...... of text.

As yet, none of the troops has responded to the leader.

A sad day when not even the socks can be bothered to get out of the drawer.

Freedom wrote:As yet, none of the troops has responded to the leader.

A sad day when not even the socks can be bothered to get out of the drawer.

Ha! He does go on and on about the same thing. I tend to disagree with most of the points but these particularly stand out:

46 When Dr Kate McCann published her book, ‘madeleine’, on 11 May 2011, seven pages of her book mentioned Smithman. Three of these seven pages consisted of an itemised list of the ‘striking similarities’ between ‘Tannerman’ and ‘Smithman’. Was Martin Smith consulted about this before the proofs went to the printers?

Given that Kate's book is, imo, largely a work of fiction then the 'striking similarities' between Smithman and Tannerman should be viewed with suspicion. I would suggest that Pat Brown struck the nail on the head when she said that the FACT that Kate wants us to believe that Tannerman and Smithman are the same, is proof that she will not allow for Smithman to be a separate sighting.  Why? There can only be one good reason for that. I am sure TB is fully aware of the answer to his question above.

54 On either, or each, of those occasions, did Martin Smith say something like: “Look Mr Redwood, I saw Gerry McCann carrying that child at 10pm on 3 May. I object to you using my sighting to suggest it was someone else”?


The above is typical of TB's approach. Mr Smith didn't state that the man he saw was definitely Gerry McCann. In Mr Smith's opinion, there was a 20% to 40% chance that the man was someone else so why on earth would Mr Smith make such an objection? This is an example of a straw man argument. You misrepresent the position taken by a person in order to make their position sound weak and attack what they say (and better still, attack the person which is 'ad hominem'.

60 How credible a witness would Martin Smith be if put on a witness stand to testify that in his judgment he was 60% to 80% sure he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3 May 2007? How well would that evidence stand up under cross-examination?


This is disingenuous, as is a lot of what TB writes about the Smith sighting, imo. He was probably specifically asked to what percentage he thought he had seen Gerry that night. He is not 'sure' - how can he be unless he went up to him and took a DNA sample? He is 'pretty sure' based on those percentages, but that leaves a '20% to 40%' chance that the man he saw was NOT Gerry McCann.

Having said all that, I think there could possibly be some mileage in the idea that Mr Smith is of the opinion - for whatever reason and bear in mind he co-owns an apartment there so would be privy to a lot of local information - that Robert Murat was definitely NOT 'the abductor.' Even if Mr Smith does not know Murat very well and only recognises him by sight, he would presumably still know a lot of people who DO know Murat. And, as already stated, he would have been privy to local information from people who were in and around the area that week and on the day of the alleged abduction.

I remain reasonably open-minded about Smithman but I totally agree with Pat that the reason he is important is that Kate will NOT allow him to be a separate sighting to Tannerman. I do not think there are similarities in the appearances of the two men. I think they look quite different and in any case why would an abductor be so silly as to be wandering around carrying a child three quarters of an hour after he allegedly first stole Madeleine from her bed? This is what Kate would have us believe and it's completely illogical.

But let's imagine for a moment that Tannerman and Smithman are one and the same person, as Kate would have us believe.  Does that mean that Smithman was possibly seen at 9.15pm, carrying a child away? I do believe that Jane Tanner's 'Tanner-man' was only concocted in the early hours of Friday morning quite possibly after Matt had spoken to Jez Wilkins who could perfectly reasonably have been expected to be an eye-witness for Tanner-man. But he wasn't.

Did Jez perhaps see Tannerman after all (if we are to assume that Tannerman and Smithman are one and the same, in other words?) He will only be an eye-witness for Gerry McCann (Tannerman?)

My brain hurts.

Or to simplify, purely theoretically.

1. Jane Tanner claims she saw Gerry and Jez outside apartment 5A at the same time that she saw Tannerman carrying Madeleine away. This is an absurd suggestion. The window of 'abduction' opportunity is tiny and 'the mystery abductor' is within eyesight of, allegedly, a minimum of three eye-witnesses - Gerry, Jane Tanner and Jez. We know that Tannerman was ruled out so logically that places 'the abductor' as most likely to be Gerry, who had only just left the apartment, allegedly, and eulogized about how beautiful Madeleine looked and how lucky he was. This does not tally with the man on the airport bus swearing about the prospect of a week's holiday with his wife and three children. The other potential abductors that would need to be ruled out, given the timing and their locations, are Jane and Jez. Logically, if Jane is correct and 'the abductor' struck at around 9.15pm then that would place Gerry, Jane and Jez as prime suspects.

2. Mr Smith is of the opinion that there is a 60% to 80% chance that the man he saw that night at around 10pm was Gerry McCann.

3. Kate is adamant that Tannerman is Smithman. If Mr Smith's statistics are correct, then that means that (by Mr Smith's statistics) Tannerman is 60% to 80% likely to be Gerry McCann.

4. Early eyewitness reports from at least one member of staff are that the Tapas table was empty shortly after 9.15pm and certainly by 9.30pm. This is not consistent with the alarm not having been raised by Kate until 10pm. I wonder who first started raising the alarm about a missing child at around 9.15pm or so?

5. Why did Jez in his first police statement state that he saw a blond rasta-haired man acting suspiciously in the Tapas area and then days later change his witness statement?

Point 3 from poster above.

JT was acting as point,she didn't know what JW saw, so had to make up a description,all imo of course.

Heisenburg wrote:Point 3 from poster above.

JT was acting as point,she didn't know what JW saw, so had to make up a description,all imo of course.

Yes I do believe it was damage-limitation and 'look this way not that way!' We know that JW flagged up a blond rasta-man in his first witness statement so unless he was lying he saw a blond rasta-man acting suspicious in/around the Tapas at around 7.30pm on Thursday evening. In his first witness statement he makes no mention of having bumped into GM at 9.15pm as far as I can remember. This is distinctly odd and raises huge red flags. It would appear that the first mention of GM having bumped into Jez outside apartment 5A was made in the early hours of Friday morning. Matt goes to Jez and Bridget's apartment and wakes them up in the company of OC resort manager. He then tells Jez (in the company of OC resort manager) that GM saw him at 9.15pm the previous evening and asks if he (Jez) saw anything. To which Jez replies: 'You're joking!'

There is so much to unravel in the above, imo, especially when you take into account that Jez changed his witness statements.

But what an extraordinary coincidence (there are so many in this case!) Gerry, Jane AND Jez are apparently outside apartment 5A at precisely the time that 'the abductor' is taking away Madeleine! Talk about being caught red-handed.

It's also worth looking at the list of questions that Dr Amaral urgently faxed to Jez on his and Bridget's return to the UK.

I think that this encounter is one of the 'keys' to unravelling the mystery.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/clarifications/9539250/apology-to-criminal-profiler-pat-brown/

An article “KEY TO FINDING MADDIE Expert says mystery man spotted on night she disappeared is key to solving case of missing Madeleine McCann” (11 March) originally had a headline which reported that criminal profiler Pat Brown believed Madeleine McCann may have been abducted by a mystery man seen on the night she disappeared. To clarify, she believes that the man is key to solving the case, but does not believe that he abducted Madeleine. A version of the headline also suggested that two ‘mystery men’ seen on the night may have been the same person; in fact, Pat Brown believes they were different men. We apologise for the error.

She had help from an old friend! From Facebook:

‪@zampos With many thanks to Tony Bennett for his advice to press IPSO & @TheSun for an accurate correction AND apology for their libelous article (& it took me many, many emails to IPSO to get the reporter to write what she should (she tried her best not to) & here we are.