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

candyfloss wrote:Found this and interesting re Smith sighting......

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

"The McCanns seem to have totally ignored the Smith family’s evidence for the past 18 months, and have never issued a photo fit of the man they saw. However, Metodo 3, the discredited investigation firm previously retained by the McCanns, spoke to the Smiths and did little but worry them.
When making the supposed “reconstruction”, Channel 4, if it was to maintain even the slightest veil of credibility, had no option but to refer to the Smith sighting. But the way they spun the evidence by suggesting it supported Miss Tanner and cleared Gerald McCann was disgraceful.

The Smith’s Evidence as Portrayed on Channel 4

It is thus no wonder that the two sightings appear to corroborate each other when Channel 4 used the same child and actor for both, dimmed the Smith scene into almost total darkness with strong back lighting -while improving that for Jane Tanner - and failed to accurately represent the way the family stated the child had been carried or what the man had been wearing. Another example of twisted evidence?
At the time Dr Amaral was dismissed, he was planning to return the Smith family to Portugal to obtain further evidence from them. His successor, Mr Rebelo, failed to do this and to this day the sighting is unresolved. There is nothing in the CD to indicate that Gerald McCann was eliminated as the man the Smith family had seen.
The Smith sighting, which was some 35 minutes later than Jane Tanner’s, was around a mile away from the Ocean Club, to the South and West. It is difficult to imagine that Miss Tanner’s abductor would have turned back, passing the Ocean Club, to be in a position where he was seen by the Smiths. At best, the two sightings, if either took place, are unrelated but the fact that the McCanns now link them, to support Jane Tanner’s evidence is disingenuous.
MORE ON “MADELEINE WAS HERE”

Mimi wrote:

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

Yes. I do recall someone saying 'playing games' as well, and as WLBTS mentioned, I could of sworn it was DW.

Skim-read her statements last night and couldn't see any reference to it at all.

All I can find on this is on link below.  Apparently it appeared in the Jornal de Noticias..


http://3as.madeleinemccann.org/viewtopic.php?p=238147

From Pat's blog:

Anonymous said...
Addendum (from WLBTS):

I think that comment from Diane Webster may well be a forum myth that I've mistakenly thought came from the files. If it is in the files, I can't find it, so I'll chalk it up as a myth.

Nevertheless, I'm still convinced by other evidence of conflict between Gerry and Kate - but even if I'm wrong, the key point is still correct: that you can easily come up with other explanations for things (like the 'last photo') that fit the evidence. Same as you can't just assume that a little girl with make-up on who may have been crying somehow equals paedophilia.

April 10, 2017 at 6:50 PM

Just quoting myself from yesterday evening:

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

I do apologise for misleading members. I got that wrong.... It was only part-written in blue.

I support Pat Brown.... I support Richard Hall..... It's like being back in the school playground.

I'll go and read the rest of their rubbish now.

Just read Tony's latest garbage.

Snipped:

Finally, the other place 'over there' has a group of former malcontents from here openly stating today that CMOMM's views on the Last Photo prove that CMOMM is a 'McCann-supporting website' that amounts to 'government-controlled opposition'.

Tony looking into the members lounger here yet again He can't keep away..... but why the outright lies (again).

Where does it say the bold in the exact same terminology that you have stated and want people to believe?

It doesn't does it so yet again I have proved that you are an out and out liar.

Oh dear

If being a 'malcontent' is believing that not everyone who gave witness statements is a liar, particularly Mr Smith and Mrs Fenn then I shall wear my badge with pride, and glad to have left a place that does believe that.

I think the title of the thread over there says it all, it has been twisted changed and says...


'Pat Brown still claiming like Grange and the McCanns, that 'Smithman' is key to solving Maddie McCann mystery'



I haven't heard the McCanns say that?

Lets just have this right for ALL to see.

My posts which TB is referring to (in order):

Yesterday at 9:34 pm

Seriously though, I know people here all have differing views on CMoMM but I very much stand by my own assertions on the whole set-up.

You could argue that I'm slightly biased due to all the rubbish from them that I have received but I'm not here to convince anybody as obviously everyone can form their own conclusions, just like on the McCann case.

For me it all appears to be about obfuscation and implication by association. And basically anything to lead folk down rabbit holes which will focus on anything and everything that will take the 'heat' away from certain aspects of the case.

I could harp on more about it but I don't want to bore you all.



Yesterday at 10:14 pm

Yes, controlled opposition is a good way to describe it as well. Controlled discussion also.

And agree that it all changed when Crimewatch aired which coincidentally was around the same time TB was given his '93% reduction' (or thereabouts).

I personally think that the relationship between Jill and Tony goes way beyond and is far deeper than just 'forum land', and to me anyway, that would explain a lot.

IMO etc.



Today at 8:57 am

At times I feel like I've been on some sort of dossier by CMoMM for god knows how long.

And I truly believe if I left some sort of 'business footprint' for example on forum land then I could have been up against all sorts of mess.

I've certainly been a 'target' for them over the years which gets more bizarre the more I actually give a stuff and think about it.

Anyway, I get your point though but you could also say "they" certainly don't like people discussing certain aspects of the case on CMoMM though, which of course is a hindrance to them. (just a banning is usually suffice on that though).

IMO etc.


... So for transparency purposes then I have not said the following as you deliberately suggested and nor has anybody else:

 'McCann-supporting website' that amounts to 'government-controlled opposition'

Ok, controlled opposition then yes. I'll give you that one but to insert 'Government' into it is plain wrong.

Let me know if there is anything else I can pull you up on and make you look like a fool again?

Regards.

So TB is correcting me, apparently Smithman according to the McCanns appeared in 2009. Even so, the files were published in August 2008, and the McCanns knew of the sighting, but it never appeared on the website, whilst Tannerman had much publicity

Andrew wrote:Just read Tony's latest garbage.

Snipped:

Finally, the other place 'over there' has a group of former malcontents from here openly stating today that CMOMM's views on the Last Photo prove that CMOMM is a 'McCann-supporting website' that amounts to 'government-controlled opposition'.

Tony looking into the members lounger here yet again He can't keep away..... but why the outright lies (again).

Where does it say the bold in the exact same terminology that you have stated and want people to believe?

It doesn't does it so yet again I have proved that you are an out and out liar.

Oh dear

NOWHERE did I say 'government-contolled opposition'. 'Controlled Opposition ' is something completely different, twisting-Tone.

As for 'malcontent', ok, half right. I'm not rebellious mischief-making troublemaker, and.never was while a member of CMOMM. But I may have elements of dissent in that I will question 'official policy' and am not afraid to debate and discuss. Dissidents are, of course, historically found to be heros in their undermining of the false doctrines of authoritarian states.

Tony really did miss out on a long-term career as a politician!

The Smith Sighting is definitely a strange addition to the McCann Saga but whilst I don't disagree entirely with Pat it really isn't quite as straightforward as she would have us believe. The timing for one. For Gerry to be carrying a dead Madeleine down to the beach around 10 o' clock she would have to have died at least as early as 8.30 for there to be detectable cadaver odour. What sort of neglect would require such subterfuge ? She was still in the crèche until tea time allowing just 3 hours at the most for some awful accident to befall her. Let's face it children unfortunately have accidents all the time , sometimes tragic, but parents don't feel the need to cover it up. So what sort of 'neglect' are we talking about that they couldn't just take ownership of ? Surely it would have been easier to concoct a story that ameliorated the neglect rather than the full blown abduction ? If the whole sorry episode had happened at an earlier date surely Gerry would have come up with something better ? The time factor really does not sit well with this theory of Gerry being Smithman. We're told by CRIMEWATCH that Tanner's sighting was genuine and by the same token presumably her sighting of Gerry and Jez was genuine too. If Gerry then rushed back into the apartment to carry out the 'disposal' deed , he was surely taking a huge risk knowing there were other people about? Wouldn't he have disguised himself ....or at least the child.................in some way? Of course if we don't believe CRIMEWATCH ................................and you have to ask yourself why Tannerman never came forward in all those years...........................we do sense a cover up.
I can think of a reason why the Smithman sighting wasn't high on the McCann team's publicity. If Tannerman was an invention the sight of another man carrying a Madeleine look alike that same evening would be verging on the ridiculous. Maybe they wanted to protect the Tannerman sighting?

Copied from Wiki and available for ages for all to see.......




Exton questioned the significance of the Tanner sighting of a man carrying a child at 21:15 near apartment 5A, and focused instead on the Smith sighting at 22:00—the sighting by Martin and Mary Smith of a man carrying a child near the McCanns' apartment that night. The Oakley team produced e-fits based on the Smiths' description. This was a sensitive issue, because in September 2007 Martin Smith had watched footage of the McCanns arriving in the UK from Portugal, and believed he recognized Gerry McCann as the man he had seen with the child in Praia da Luz. Smith came to accept that he was mistaken: at 22:00 witnesses placed Gerry McCann in the tapas restaurant. Nevertheless, publication of the Smith e-fits, which bore some resemblance to Gerry, would have fed the conspiracy theories about the McCanns.[58]

Exton submitted his report to Madeleine's Fund in November 2008, but the fund told Exton that the report and its e-fits had to remain confidential. The relationship between the company and the fund had soured, in part because of a dispute over fees, and in part because the report was critical of the McCanns and their friends; it suggested that Madeleine may have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself through its unlocked patio doors.[58] The fund passed the e-fits to the police—the Polícia Judiciária and Leicestershire police had them by October 2009, and Scotland Yard received them when they became involved in August 2011[234]—but did not otherwise release them. Kate McCann did not include them with the other images of suspects in her book, Madeleine (2011), although she suggested that both the Tanner and Smith sightings were crucial.[58]

Scotland Yard released the e-fits in 2013 for a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction. After it had aired, The Sunday Times published that the McCanns had had the e-fits since 2008.[58] In response the couple sued the newspaper for having implied (wrongly) that they had not only failed to publish them but had withheld them from the police. The newspaper apologized and paid £55,000 in damages.[234][235]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Raising_money

Dissenting posts coming thick and fast now on CMoMM, in support of GA and Pat. All those malcontents! I can hear the traumatised wails of the blue ink dispenser as TB cranks up the keyboard charger from here.

Verdi says Pat Brown dips in and out and only has the files. One big difference, she is trained and she knows what to look for and how to analyse more than anyone here. She knows which aspects are important and which are not and she gives her trained opinion. Yes, she did go to PDL to meet Goncalo and PeterMac - and no doubt got a lot of information. Genuine question - has TB every been, I cannot recall he has, and I wonder why not. How anyone (TB) can say she is talking rubbish is beyond me. Strange how suddenly like almost everyone else, she has become persona non grata, one by one everyone gets the treatment I won't say she is blonde too

As far as I know, he has only ever visited PeterMac in Spain.

He doesn't have to agree with the opinions of others but he really should respect them and not dismiss them as being wrong.

I too noticed no mention of Pat working with PeterMac in Portugal. But, of course, she sings from the wrong hymn sheet so she is demonised. She has done nothing more nor less than PeterMac practically, and has, like him, reached her own conclusions.

Verdi, is her 'Claim' to Criminal Profiling similar to PeterMac's claim to be an ex-police officer?

Utterly transparent tommy-rot. Pat's only crime is that her theory does not coincide with TB's calculated rhetoric. It just seems that, dependant on their viewpoint, some 'experts' are more credible than others. Darren Ware, for example, is more credible than Pat Brown. 

You couldn't make it up, Verdi. Oh! You just did!

More experts who are more credible than others are the "last photo" ones! One with a less than exemplary record as regards past work and one completely anonymous so goodness knows what his or her history is.

Quite. 

And don't forget all the other anonymous 'experts' over there who have painstakingly revealed the definitive truth over the years and may not be questioned.

Led by that other enormously credible expert Tony Bennett, far more credible than that mistaken old plodder Goncalo Amaral. After all, GA only had a limited time on the case.

Totally agree with this. I think the Smith sighting is the key to understanding much of what happened last week.

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.

I think the Smiths did see Gerry. It is certainly possible that the child he was carrying was Madeleine. I think it is also possible that it was a decoy child. The decoy child thing sounds mad but given that we know there was a disaster that week - Gerry said as much so did Robert Murat in different words - then it maybe no-one was really thinking straight and hasty decisions were made.

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.

Yes, this is the biggie. Kate tries (but fails dismally, imo) to morph the Smith sighting into Tanner-man despite the three-quarters of an hour between the sightings and the fact that, imo, Smithman looks nothing like Tanner-man. No-one will convince me that the two men look the same. And why would an abductor be wandering around 3/4 of an hour after he was seen by Jane Tanner, allegedly spiriting Madeleine away in a completely different direction. This simply makes no sense at all and would make the abductor the most incompetent abductor ever! I'll try to find a map showing the routes taken by Tannerman and by Smithman. They are in completely different directions and it would make no sense whatsoever if it was the abductor.


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.

Yes. The (simulated/faked) abduction was supposed to have happened at 9.15pm, imo, but there was 'a disaster' and it didn't happen. Gerry was forced to carry a child at 10pm because of the 'disaster', imo, and he was spotted by nine members of the Smith family. He could not risk speaking to the family as his accent would have been a giveaway. However he would have learned from Mrs Smith's question that she had an Irish accent. Hence the TM appeal for Irish holidaymakers to send their photographs to TM.

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.
[/i]

Exactly! After the Smiths went to the police and gave a detailed description of the man they saw that evening, the Tanner-man sketch was made public. I refuse to believe that these timings are a coincidence. IMO it was imperative to TM that the Smith sighting was suppressed and Tanner-man was instead publicized. Kate fails to convince her readers, imo, that the man is one and the same.

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.


Yes, yes and yes again! If the McCanns were completely innocent of any involvement and genuinely believed she had been abducted then the Smith sighting would have been jumped on as there were nine witnesses. As PB observes it is a far, far stronger lead than Tanner-man. Tanner-man is an incredibly weak lead. He was only seen by Jane Tanner who is a close friend of the McCans and therefore not impartial. There are no other witnesses and - even worse - Jez Wilkins who happened to be in the same place at the same time as Jane Tanner will not lend support for the sighting. Stating it was unlikely that he wouldn't have spotted the man.  Tanner-man simply doesn't have a leg to stand on, let alone run away on. The Portuguese police dismissed the sighting from the outset which is why the sketch was not released to the public for several weeks. It was only when 'lent on' that the Tanner-man sketch was released and this just so happened to be after the Smiths had given a detailed description of the man they saw that evening to the police. Coincidence? I think not. There are far too many already in this case.

Dee Coy wrote:Dissenting posts coming thick and fast now on CMoMM, in support of GA and Pat. All those malcontents! I can hear the traumatised wails of the blue ink dispenser as TB cranks up the keyboard charger from here.

:D

Good to see a poll has already popped up!

I think that when the Smithman efit was made public at the time of the Crimewatch programme in 2013, the producers of the programme deliberately placed the McCanns in front of a giant efit of Smithman in a deliberate attempt to put them in their place and also show up the likeness of Smithman to Gerry. (not correct, it was a mocked up picture and not what appeared on Crimewatch - candyfloss)

The pair look so uncomfortable sitting there. Gerry has lost all his braggadocio and looks unsure of himself and Kate looks positively demented. This cannot have been a good day for them. And we know that the programme got a lot of responses. I refuse to believe that there were not people at OC that week, whether guests, staff or visitors, that did not become suspicious about the McCanns and their friends.

Some of the eye-witness accounts are not in the PJ files - for instance Nigel from Southampton - and I can only assume this is because they contain sensitive information that is relevant to the case. Nigel, imo, spotted suspicious behaviour from members of TM and went to the police with it. Surely he would not be the only person that week who noticed something that was strange?

The nannies I am convinced were 'lent on'.

If it is true that something bad happened to Madeleine earlier in the week (not necessarily death by then, imo) then how on earth did TM hide this from the other children? Madeleine was supposedly in the same kids' club as Tanner's daughter. Surely she would have noticed Madeleine's absence from the club? The pair would have spent Saturday afternoon/evening together and all day on Sunday. Even if you subscribe to the kiko substitute child theory, surely the other children would not mistake another child for Madeleine - especially Lily Payne who travelled out with Madeleine and Jane Tanner's daughter who would have played with Madeleine on Saturday and Sunday?

I know Bridget O'Donnell states that all the children were blond, pink and pretty and I can accept that some of the staff might not muddled up children but surely not children who already knew what Madeleine looked like?

@poster, I believe that was a mocked up picture, and not what happened.  I think you mentioned the same thing before and Freedom had already mentioned it to you.

I can think of a reason why the Smithman sighting wasn't high on the McCann team's publicity. If Tannerman was an invention the sight of another man carrying a Madeleine look alike that same evening would be verging on the ridiculous. Maybe they wanted to protect the Tannerman sighting?

------


I think that is a good point. I think they also wanted to shift the time-frame away from 10pm and towards 9.15pm.

I doubt that GM has an alibi for the time of the Smithman sighting. While supposedly sitting at the table in the Tapas until KM raises the alarm at 10pm, I think that TM would have been in disarray from 9.15pm onwards. This is when the action was supposed to start, imo, but a 'disaster' prevented it from happening. All hell broke loose and Gerry was forced to do the abducting (whether of Madeleine or a decoy child) at 10pm and was spotted by a family of nine.

candyfloss wrote:@poster, I believe that was a mocked up picture, and not what happened.  I think you mentioned the same thing before and Freedom had already mentioned it to you.

Fair enough. I would have to watch the documentary again.

But whatever is the case I do believe the Smithman sighting was most unwelcome.

Worth watching again, not just to see the McCann's terrible acting and GM smirking throughout but also because it is inaccurate/unbelievable. For instance, the Saturday pool scene Kate and Madeleine are shown splashing about happily but the water was freezing - not nearly warm enough to be so relaxed in the water.

Also, the Thursday lunchtime pool scene. Madeleine and her parents are shown sitting at the adult pool. Yet the 'last photo' shows the family sitting by the toddler pool. I mean, why do a 'reconstruction' which is so different to the McCann version of events?

It's interesting what is emphasised - swimming on Saturday; Wednesday breakfast time when Madeleine asks where they were when she and Sean cried the previous evening; the Thursday pool-side scene; tennis, running and events of Thursday.

I think the account of Thursday, particularly Thursday evening, is complete fiction. The lovely cozy last evening - don't believe a word of it. The checking sequence also sounds like fiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y