Monday, April 10, 2017

Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case

 

An awful lot of people believe the "Last Photo" is the key to what happened to Maddie. I disagree. Furthermore, I don't believe it is even very important in the analysis of this case. Worse, it is a huge distraction which has lead to a very complicated theory of Maddie dying on Sunday which lacks the support of solid, credible evidence. Furthermore, it completely negates the most important piece of evidence in the case - the Smith sighting. Let me explain how, as a profiler, the "Last Photo" as any kind of evidence pales in comparison to the Smith sighting and excessive focus on it should be laid to rest.

First of all, the "Last Photo" is not photoshopped. It is a real photo. Now, as to when it was taken, I can accept that it might not have been taken when the McCanns claimed (although I believe it may well have been taken when they said it was). I will go even further - to make my point - and be willing to accept that one possibility is that it might have been taken on Sunday. So, let's say it was indeed taken on that day. What does that tell us? Here is where the speculation goes off track. As a profiler, all I can tell you is if it is true the photo was taken days before the McCanns claim, there might be a half dozen reasons for them choosing that photo and saying it was taken later in the week, none of which are very alarming to the point of throwing up a huge red flag.

Here is an example of how speculating on certain evidence leads to false conclusions.

My granddaughter was born three years ago. She was born at my daughter's home in a planned home birth quite close to her due date, just a day or so early. At the time of her birth, I lived just thirty minutes from my daughter's home. On the occasion of my granddaughter's first birthday, my daughter cobbled together one of those first-year-of-life albums with photos from birth through turning one. As one peruses the photos, one cannot help notice that there is but one photo of me, the only grandmother, in the whole book and I am conspicuously absent from the birth photos. My ex-husband is shown holding the newborn baby in a couple of photos, the baby's uncles are there with big smiles on their faces, my best friend (who was an "aunty" to my daughter during her childhood) is there helping at the birth, but I am not. Why am I, the grandmother of the baby, the mother of the woman giving birth, not there?

Okay, start speculating.







Did any of you come up with these possibilities?

My daughter and I have a bad relationship and I wasn't invited to the birth.
I was busy doing television and my career and publicity was more important than being at the birth.
I was off traveling - having planned a vacation around the time of my daughter's due date.
I was opposed to home birth an refused to show up and support my daughter's choice.


Yeah, none of these are true. Oh, and, wait, look here! What is this?










Yes, that is a photo of me at the birth! What the heck? Where did that come from and why, if it isn't a photoshopped picture or a photo of me with another baby, or a photo of me with the baby on a day sometime after the birth, why wasn't that photo in my daughter's picture book? Why would it be left out?

First of all, let's talk about if the photo is actually me at the birth. Yes, it is a real photo. I was there. Not only was I there, but I chose to be there under stressful circumstances. Oh, no, not that I had any problems with my daughter; our relationship was fine. And I am a supporter of home birth; my son, David, was born at home. In fact, I went with my daughter to her final midwifery appointment and as soon as she called and told me she was in labor, I raced over to her house. I would never have planned a vacation during the last month of her pregnancy and I would have turned down all television and work-related jobs to be present at the birth. In fact, the stressful circumstance which made my presence difficult was that my mother was dying in another state and I had to choose whether to be at her deathbed or at my granddaughter's birth.

I had been at my father's side when he died just a year earlier and I had been making trips back and forth to New York to help my sister care for my mother in her last year of life as she declined with Alzheimers. After she fell and was hospitalized for the last time, my other sister went up to New York to help as my daughter's due date was nearing. I then had to choose to be with my mother or to be with my daughter, not knowing exactly when my daughter would give birth or my mother would leave this world. I did what I thought my mother would sanction; I stayed for the birth. My mother died the same day, just hours after the baby was born, so I was unable to fly there after the birth to be there in time to say goodbye.

So, yes, I was at the birth, totally involved, and none of the negative speculation would have been accurate. So, what about the photo? Quite simple really. My daughter didn't have that photo. I never had sent it over to her. The photos she DID have of me weren't very flattering and she knows I hate bad photos of myself, so she kindly did not include them in the book. Yes, other grandmothers wouldn't have cared if they looked like a wildebeest holding the baby but my daughter knew it would make me shudder. I asked a woman who put a photo of me kissing an iguana in a marketplace during a trip to Nicaragua to pull the photo from Facebook; the iguana's sideview of it's neck and dewlap hanging down looked a whole lot better than mine. I love the photo (privately) but not for public viewing!  Okay, call me what you will -  proud, vain, whatever - I just hate embarrassingly bad photos of myself at my age.

So, now, see how speculation as to why there was no  photo of me at my granddaughter's birth can go so far off course? Now, think about the "Last Photo" of the McCanns. Why would they lie, if they even did, about the time it was taken? I can think of a whole bunch of reasons which are far less bizarre than Maddie being dead by Sunday which then requires a massive plan to hide the fact and cooperation of a great number of people being  needed to carry on the charade for the next four days.

Let's see.

1. There WERE other photos of Maddie that week but they were blurred or not very good, so the McCanns chose the pool photo but said it was on Thursday because that made the photo more compelling (the LAST photo! The McCanns like spin and know its value).

2. They were other photos of Maddie but THEY look bad in them (and Kate and Gerry like to look good).

3. There were no other photos past Sunday because once they did their day with the children, they dumped them in care during the day and left them at night because they were busy enjoying their adult vacation and they didn't want to admit not spending time with them.

In other words, it is dangerous to speculate, creating dots that do not necessarily exist and then connecting those dots to create a theory. To me, the "Last Photo" is just a photo and I can find no reason to exaggerate its meaning.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 10, 2017


Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'


By Pat Brown 


Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.


52 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat. I am sick to the back teeth of people purporting their theories that Madeleine died earlier in the week. There are quite a few reasons I think this is happening but I won't go into detail here. Also by carrying on this 'theory' and making other people come round to their way of thinking, do they not realise that they are rubbishing Goncalo Amaral's theory too? As if he hasn't been through enough already. A guy with nearly 30 years experience being rubbished by keyboard warriors, I don't think so. The photographs are not the crux of the case either so attention should not be paid to where and when they were taken. This is a huge distraction from the FACTS which is what people should be paying attention to. I'm right behind you on this one. Maybe the McCanns didn't acknowledge the Smith sighting because of the money rolling into the fund, who knows? But Smithman is still there but being ignored in the grand scheme of things. Whether some people have another agenda I don't know. This case was solved back in 2007, everything since then has been just for show. People can't find Maddie saying read this, read that, believe this, believe that. People should be led by the Portuguese police files and be allowed to make up their own minds.

Wybrand said...

Is your book only in ebook?

Pat Brown said...

Anon 10:14,

I don't object to other theories - after all, that is why they are called theories! However, as a profiler, I want evidence that is solid to base my theory on. While I really have no clue to if the last photo was taken on Thursday or Sunday, there is nothing I can find that is substantial enough to warrant an earlier death. If the death were earlier, I can guarantee from the history of parents covering up children's deaths, they do the simplest thing possible. Which, in fact, is what the McCanns likely did under the panic of the evening of May 3. Furthermore, there is no need to guess what the McCanns thought about the Smith sighting; they told us and their behaviors clearly informed us that they did not want to acknowledge that sighting as a possible "abductor." Hence, THAT is solid evidence and that is what I base my theory on (along with many other pieces of evidence - lack of evidence of abduction, the dogs, the lies, etc.)

Pat Brown said...

Wybrand,

Yes, only in ebook. Publishers refuse to put out a paper book on the market. Therefore, I did the only other possible thing; self-publish an ebook. It is available at Smashwords and B&N. Amazon pulled the book under threat of lawsuit from the McCanns and Carter-Ruck.

AnneGuedes said...

I completely agree with you, Pat. The MCs' ignorance the Smith sighting leads simply and plausibly to the very strong presumption that it didn't suit them at all and obviously for alibi reasons.
It is absolutely excluded that Smithman was carrying a corpse with a PMI of many days. It would have smelt like hell, no necessity to call for Eddie.
But I'd like you to clarify this : "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". Why should MMC have died while being neglected ? Eddie wouldn't agree with that.
This neglect question is the best shield the MCs have, because it is turns abduction possible, in spite of existing no evidence of it.

Pat Brown said...

Anne,

I have covered this over and over in my blogs but, simply put, the discombobulation of the evening supports Gerry discovered Madeleine dead and made a decision to deal with it. Furthermore, setting oneself up for neglect charges and the hatred of the police is unnecessary when all you have to do is go to jimmy a window after dark and pretend someone broke in and took the child while you were sleeping. This way, you remain the ever decent parent with the sympathies of the police and public. The apartment was locked down (I do NOT believe the sliding door was left open) and the convoluted and changing story of how the abductor got in was hastily concocted which is why nothing was planned earlier on.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for keeping your finger on the pulse Pat & nice to see a post of Anne

All depends on what you want to believe in life and sometimes the obvious, is too obvious. I think, to be honest, I always wanted this case to be woke up and wandered off, since that would make the McCanns totally responsible, with no abductor to blame. Children left homealone played it's part.

So put that aside, and just hold the thought about the case of Oscar Pistorius, I actually believe him, but I don't support the action he subsequently carried out.

My take on events, after carefully again reading the Roggies, is that the McCanns returned ALONE to the apartment & specifically the bedroom, where Madeleine was discovered in the corner of the room. Whether through direct trauma or accidental postural suffocation she was beyond help. Out of sight on Mrs McC on her check, here, sound plays it's part, because I doubt Mrs McC was actually looking for Madeleine, as in with the eyes and rather like all the helpers out there that night searching PDL with their 'ears'

Back to the Roggies, no one entered the bedroom for anything upwards of 20 minutes, the first was Diane Webster. There was time at this point in panic, possibly confused with alcohol to have 'ran' with Madeleine - crossing the path with the Smiths. All you need to do is find a few minutes around the 9.45 (or earlier) to 10, I believe this time slot is the most critical of all - the rest is all window dressing & going with the flow of events.

Anything could have happened next and is anyone's guess. Sound is essential to this whole saga and\or lack of it.

Looking at the T9 jotted timelines, an added check here, a sighting there - subsequently dismissed by Redwood all added to the confusion and meanwhile, gave alibis to everyone that it must have happened earlier, in the Tanner sighting time frame.

I once spent a whole 8 hour shift looking for a patient - she was found next to her bed!!! How was that done? It comes down to the pre-preception of what you are looking for, not necessarily what is actually there.

Anonymous said...

A follower of mine on twitter knows Mr Smith & he said he told him it was Gerry McCann carrying that child.

liznewman1949 said...

Yes I agree, and I have always wondered why they totally dismissed the Smith's sighting and at one point in their documentary tried to imply that the Tanner sighting and the Smiths one were the same person. I don't believe Maddie died earlier in the week either.

AnneGuedes said...

I don't think that the Smiths could be affirmative concerning Smithman's identity, they didn't see his face, and had they seen his face, how, not knowing Smithman and Smithman having an banal face, would they remember it ? Martin Smith had seen once or twice RM, that's how he was capable to say it was not him.
I would have liked to show Aoife the pants with the side buttons.
The crucial point in MS's testimony is Smithman's clumsy holding. It was unexpected from a man whom he logically thought was the child's father. How could he guess that this father lookalike was carrying a cadaver ?

AnneGuedes said...

Pat, like you I think that lots of details indicate that the abduction scenario was hastily concocted. I think that GMC left the sliding door open after his check. It was on purpose, they never did it before (imo), Fiona suggests it clearly in her rog.
But I do think also that these people would never stage an abduction as primary people could. First thing, would they have been capable of jemmying genuinely ? And silently ? It was much easier to say that shutters were jemmied or open than to jemmy or open them. And it worked perfectly, you have to admit. Although nobody saw the shutters raised and the window opened, nobody doubted those crucial details that had a very, very long life in the media. The MCs had to substitute "opened" to "jemmied" because the GNR, after having a quick look, likely said that nothing was broken.
Apart from that, as I told you before, I believe that Eddie, in a flat that was rented to 4 families between the disappearance and M. Grime's arrival and all the draughts one can imagine, needed the (at least) average minimum PMI for cadaver dogs to alert : 150/180 minutes.

AnneGuedes said...

Hi Anonymous 12:30, no need to be a sleuth to know who you are.. Fine to read you ! Sound is important, sure, and it seems, Fiona again, that nobody entered the flat right after the alarm, they ran in all directions, except the dark alley path that none of them ever used. Around 21h50/55, as independent witnesses said the alarm was launched, there was enough time to meet the Smith family in rua da escola primaria 3 or 4 minutes after.

Pat Brown said...

Anne,

I will say that there may be many theories drawn about whether the Smith really saw Gerry and what exactly happened to Maddie and when but, no matter what, the reaction of the McCanns to the Smith sighting is damning and that is the whole point. Perhaps the reason they refuse to acknowledge the sighting as a man abducting their child is because they know better and don't want us to know.

Anonymous said...

From the artist formerly known as WLBTS:

I totally agree with you Pat on all the points you put forward. My 30+ years of experience in software engineering (and various image formats were a significant part of my degree) tells me that if there is any evidence that the 'last photo' was manipulated I haven't seen it, other than the date which is easily changed. I see nothing wrong with that photograph.

As you've demonstrated, you can come up with many different explanations for anything, and one of mine on this particular case is this - Gerry and Kate had been fighting all week (Diane Webster remarked that she thought 'it was another one of their games', which to me indicates they were in conflict during the holiday, although of course certain forum posters will no doubt treat the word 'game' entirely literally and come up with some kind of 'sex game' theory). As a result, they hadn't spend much time with the kids, and only had a photo or two of them at the pool in the middle of the week. They didn't want the police or the public to be aware of them fighting - they had presented themselves to the world as the perfect middle-class couple, and suspicion was already falling upon them. So they changed the date to make it look like it was the 'last photo', rather than 'one of the only photos we took'.

I don't find the last photo important at all. The Smith sighting is all important. The McCanns should have been shouting about this sighting to all the world, whether they were involved or were entirely innocent. A certain person and his forum socks, endless polls and blue ink may well deny that, but it is the truth.

AnneGuedes said...

Without the Smith sighting, we would doubt. Surely they looked in every gap and hole, but what if she was killed by a sudden fall of stones as she tried to climb up (her parents would have invented the abduction as it was the only solution exonerating them) ?
But there we are, 9 people, independent witnesses, crossed a guy carrying a Madeleine lookalike shortly after the alarm was launched.
Those 9 people forced the guy to change its destination, likely father ocean, mother nature that would craddle the child.
The main mistake of the PJ, reproduced by the Public Ministry, was to accept the time line of the TP9, even with all its discrepancies, instead of observing that according to independent witnesses the group left the table before 10, not after.

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.

AnneGuedes said...

They had some kind of a row, likely related to the quiz lady, he came back alone, she slept in another bed, but what happened cruelly brought them together as nothing else possibly would have.
DW's comment is a myth, yes.

Peter Claridge said...

She was dead before they left for the Tapas bar. The fabricated timelines are entirely due to the Smith family sighting of Gerry; this brought forward the claimed abduction via the window (originally planned for the following morning). That window has caused them a lot of grief to such an extent that Mr Redwood of the yard invented a person seen carrying a child to replace the one that Jane Tanner (with help) invented to give Gerry an alibi for the Smith family sighting of him, ludicrous I know but true. That Smith family really have been most unhelpful!

Anonymous said...

I agree with your conclusions Pat.
It is important, too, that the McCanns did not release the Smith e fits to the public and, even when forced to acknowledge the significance of the Smith family's evidence, they dressed it up as somehow validating their chosen 'abductor' ( as seen by their fiend Jane Tanner )
If the McCanns' version of events were true, and they had been faced with two potential sightings of their child being carried away that night, then the natural response would be to treat each of them with the same degree of importance.
How can it be that the McCanns never even considered the possibility that the two events were unrelated, and that one sighting may have been perfectly innocent whilst the other was crucial to finding their child ?

Why on earth did they 'combine' both sightings and come to the nonsensical conclusion that it was the same man ... still wandering about PDL with their missing child in his arms an hour later ?
The McCanns' determination to push the man Jane Tanner saw as 'the abductor' ( which just happened to give Gerry McCann an air-tight alibi in the form of Jez Wilkins ) is undeniable ... even now, when the Met have all but dismissed that possibility, the McCanns continue to promote it on their website.

By the way Pat, that photo of you and your granddaughter is just lovely

Pat Brown said...

Anon 10:29,

That was an EXCELLENT analysis of the Smith sighting; very clear and right on the money. The McCanns attempts to redirect attention away from the Smith sighting or explain away the Smith sighting makes zero sense for innocence people; it makes perfect sense for people who are desperate to have the public and police believe that Gerry has an alibi (Tannerman) and, therefore, Tannerman MUST be the abductor. Burying Smithman is a sure sign they are not worried about finding Madeleine in the hands of a stranger, but seriously concerned about anyone considering Gerry might be carrying Maddie off to her burial place.

Anonymous said...

I think a clue might lay in the fact that your theory has been 'Carter-rucked' Pat, whilst this Richard Hall fellow has been permitted to push his convoluted conspiracy theory completely uncontested by the McCanns legal team.

The sort of foil-hat nonsense being purported by he and his cohorts is manna from heaven to the McCanns and their followers.

It is no coincidence that your theory largely reflects that of Goncalo Amaral, who the McCanns also tried to silence.

That is the only theory they have used lawyers to shut down.

Says it all.

Pat Brown said...

Again Anon 11:27,

You hit the nail on the head. I wrote a blog a while back on the problem with a very convoluted - if well meaning - theory that will be labeled a "conspiracy theory" and be more of positive for the McCanns than a negative. They are not so concerned with Facebook and discussioon outside the main media as they are with the MSM, major book publishers, and experts in their field. The original pamphlet of attorney, Tony Bennet, Amaral Goncalo and his book, me and my book (they have issues getting my blogs pulled due to the need to sue me in the US), and the Portuguese court which gives legal credibility to purporting certain theories. The big blow of Goncalo's win and the Supreme Court statement that the McCanns were not cleared led to MSM in Australia and the UK allowing expert opinion for the first time. This caused a response which we see with them pushing Dave Eggar making MSM claims that Maddie is alive, she has been kidnapped by a sex ring and not ENOUGH money has been spent searching for her....and EXACT response to my media statements. So, yes, it is the simpler theory of accidental death and coverup and the Smith sighting that has the McCanns sweating, not the theory she died on Sunday and a whole bunch of people are involved in some massive criminal activity.

Anonymous said...

Me = WLBTS,

The Smith sighting is the main reason that I have concluded that poor Madeleine probably died on the night of the supposed abduction. The alerts of Eddie and Keela demonstrate to me that someone died in 5A, and as nobody else is known to have died there then obviously the person who went missing from there must be the most likely candidate. Which means that she must have been already dead while being carried through the streets, if indeed, the Smiths did see Gerry McCann, and the child he was carrying was Madeleine. It indicates to me that this was an action of crisis, and not one that was pre-planned. They could have arranged for transport, or hidden her in a large bag, or at the very least covered her with a blanket. Instead, we have a hasty trek through Praia da Luz, one which was possibly witnessed by a family of 9.

That is what I consider the simplest solution. The simplest solution is however anathema to many forum dwellers, and so we have theories involving decoys, plans going wrong, wide conspiracies, photoshopped images, paedophile rings, etc. While everything is a possibility, I don't find anything other than the simplest solution plausible.

If what I've conjectured is anything close to the truth, then this makes the Smith sighting all important, the culprit literally caught in the act. The 'last photo' is of no relevance in this case, and I doubt investigators would bother to challenge its authenticity. I know that many people find satisfaction in holding up a piece of evidence and exclaiming 'Eureka! I've solved it!'. It might make a nice crime novel, but it's not how things work in the real world.

AnneGuedes said...

The child was certainly dead before they left for the Tapas. Eddie first alerted, after a couple of minutes, in the parents' bedroom corner where Keela found no blood, he therefore alerted to cadaver scent. This dog never made a false positive, a fact that would have eliminated him for good in the certification.
So, yes, the time line was manipulated... It's easy to see how GMC (and he's the only one) pushes the alarm forward between his first statement (on the ground in night 3/4) and his last one, as an arguido.

Pat Brown said...

WLBTS,

A hasty trek it was and, as you say, hardly well planned. And, yes, logic and doing the simplest thing under the circumstances is generally way people work (it isn't a Hollywood script). Very good summation!

Anonymous said...

...aka WLBTS

People make the mistake of looking at that one study of cadaverine detection times and accepting its results as fact. That's not how science works. Numerous scientific studies should be undertaken, and the trend of the results considered. If they all give nearly the same results, well then you're on to something. The authors of that study stated this in their report - that it should not be taken as conclusive, but rather as a starting point for other studies. Nobody with a scientific background - which includes myself - would accept one research study as being final and conclusive.

There are lots of reasons that the one study that has been performed may not be relevant to the possible/probable death of Madeleine McCann. For example, the pressure of a piece of gauze resting on a cadaver's stomach is not remotely similar to the pressure of a 4 year old child lying on a tiled floor. Also, did this study test cadavers of 4 year old children? Does the cause of death affect these results?

For all these reasons and others I cannot regard the results of this study as being conclusive, or even relevant to this particular case. It's only a starting point, as the authors stated, a ballpark figure. Interpreting the results as undeniable fact, especially in this unique case, is simply wrong, and would be bad science. Which means to me that the theoretical time of death is unknown.

To me it doesn't matter. What matters to me is that the police investigate Gerry's whereabouts in the hours leading up to the alarm (whatever time that was), and whether he has an alibi for the time of the Smith sighting. I've no desire to be Sherlock Holmes. Hopefully the police will do their job, and if they don't there's nothing I can do about it. The various statements of the Tapas staff are too vague to be relied upon - the police must re-interview all those people and many others, if they haven't already.

Anonymous said...

...aka WLBTS

Thanks Pat, means a lot to me as I have great respect for your professional opinion :)

I decided a couple of years ago not to comment any more on this case, it's just gone on so damned long, and over the years I ended up going around in circles arguing ever more furiously over the same small details. Operation Grange may or may not be a genuine investigation, I've no way of knowing. I'll just keep my fingers crossed until we find out.

And so, back to retirement!

Pat Brown said...

To those who seem to be confused by the purpose of this blog:

Some have commented elsewhere that they think my discussion of no photo in my daughter's birth album is bizarre in a McCann post, please do understand; this blog is NOT a professional profile. I use blogs to try and help people understand analysis and logic and evidence. I was using a real life example to elucidate how one must be careful with making assumptions and creating theories where the facts are limited.

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.

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.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your reply, Pat.

A.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat for all the time and effort you have put into this mysterious case. I too have always thought the Smith family siting was one of the most significant facts of the mystery. I tend to dismiss the testimony of the McCann friends as far as the timing of their irregular checks on the children. If Gerry was in fact Smithman would he have time to depart Apt.5a carrying Madeleine's little body, hide it somewhere in the vicinity of the beach and return to the restaurant/bar within the time frame of one of his supposed "checks" without causing suspicion among the other members of the group.

Anonymous said...

Pat I agree entirely that smithman was of key importance to the case and not the last photo. I would really like to understand the evidence that suggests that the child died as a result of a accident through neglect. AnneGuedes has said that the minimum PMI for cadaver dogs is 150/180 minutes and certainly I have heard the timescale of at least 90 minutes minutes being banded about. The dogs alerted to 3 areas the parents bedroom, behind the couch and the flowerbed outside. Even if it if the PMI of the dogs was only 90 minutes it would have meant that the child died before 8.30 which was the time they said they left for the restaurant and sometime in between she was moved after lying 90 minutes from behind the couch to the cupboard in the parents bedroom. How does that reconcile with your theory that the child died during the period they were at the restaurant.

If I'm understanding your theory correctly you think that they left for the restaurant at 8.30 by which time for the odour to have had time to develop she would already have been dead behind the couch. Gerry McCann returned at 9.10, we know that's true as there was a witness Jezz Wilkins, he didn't notice the child was actually dead behind the couch returned to the table. His wife goes to check around 9.45 and returns back saying the have taken her. Gerry McCann jumps up from the table races back to the apartment places the child in the cupboard then removes, her places her in the flowerbed,picks her up again before running down and meeting the smiths. That's even before you start to consider how the odour got onto Kate McCanns clothes and clothes belonging to the children.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 3:3,

I have written much about this and don't want to rehash my analysis on every blog and FB post, but, I will say this. When they left the apartment is not documented and when they went outside to have their wine is not documented. We cannot be exactly sure when the accident might have occurred. Also, new research shows that the time for cadaver to develop enough for dogs to determine has been shown to be far less than thought originally.

But, regardless of any of this, the reaction to Smithman is the key to the case; everything else is a great addition and some things are still a little grey, but not grey enough to wipe out the serious evidence supporting what really happened to Madeleine.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply pat.... As you said Their reaction to smithman is key

Anonymous said...

Should have said I'm not a believer in death earlier in the week, the panic in the evening, the shutters that were or weren't jemmied , Kate alerting the entire complex at a time when smithman was on walkabouts suggests the accident happened at some time in the evening she was reported missing

AnneGuedes said...

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
All trials are conducted using a lineup method:
Each consists of a line of three gauze pads - one exposed to post-mortem scent, one exposed to live human scent, and one sterile unused pad opened with gloved hands just prior to each trial.
All trials are done on a hard surface, either asphalt, cement, or hard packed dry dirt ground.
Each dog is given the "cadaver" command by its handler and walked through the lineup. The dog is then asked to choose and indicate to the handler which gauze contains post-mortem scent.
Every trial was "blind" to each handler working it, that is the handler had no prior knowledge of lineup sequence.
Dogs are given only a single choice per trial.

These experiment conditions where the gauze with PM scent is exposed just before the trial is quite different from VOCs remaining after 4 families spent a total of 4 weeks in the flat.
Results :
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.

If somebody knows a more recent and accurate experiment, please tell !

Anonymous said...

Your approach to this case is spot on Pat, in as much as you base your analysis on what DID happen, rather than what 'might' have happened.

In this instance, you allow for the possibility that the pool photo 'might' have been taken earlier in the week ( and rightly point out there could be any number of 'innocent' reasons for that ) and concentrate, instead, on the Smith family's evidence and the McCanns reaction to it ... there is no "might have" or "could have" about that because we KNOW exactly what the McCann's response ( or lack of ) was in that regard.
Just to mention, I always found it odd that the McCanns never did respond to Scotland Yard's revelation that they were satisfied they had "almost certainly" found the man Jane Tanner saw that night, and that he was just an innocent father carrying his own child.
The McCanns, who have always been ready to critisise the Portuguese investigation, were never once described as being "angry" or "furious"
by their spokesman, over the fact that the Portuguese had failed to eliminate Jane Tanner's 'abductor' ... and that they ( the McCanns and their their private detectives ) had, consequently, been looking for the WRONG man all these years.
Nope ... not a word of complaint, nor a single show of frustration or annoyance.
Instead, they used their website to allude to the fact that the Yard couldn't be 'certain' the two sightings ( Tanner's and the Smiths ) were the same man ... and continued to present Tannerman/innocent father as a person of interest to the investigation.
That determination to hold on to their 'preferred abductor', despite the Met's dismissal, must be noteworthy.

Pat Brown said...

Anne,

Very good information. The cadaverine timing is certainly an issue and I suspect the McCanns may have left the apartment for the patio or whatever earlier than stated or sat outside and just never checked back in with the kids. I cannot be certain on how long was needed prior to the dogs, but I CAN state that the behaviors of that evening represent confusion and mayhem, not anything planned.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 9:38,

Exactly. What I see is a number of people ignoring the known evidence in favor of possibilities that have not be proven to be true. As you say, we KNOW the McCanns reaction to the Smith sighting. We KNOW the McCann reaction to the Tanner "sighting." We KNOW what Kate told us in her book. One can form a theory around solid evidence with a good degree of certainty (for example, while I find the McCann nonreaction to th Smith sighting as strong evidence that there was not an abduction and Gerry lacked an alibi), the hits on the car by the dogs and the pings from Gerry's phone (and some behavioral evidence) lead me to SUGGEST this information might be worth considering Monte Jose de Mestre as a location for Maddie's body (but I am not making any proclamations about this). The problem with the last photo and creche records and such is that there is not sufficient evidence, in my opinion, to propose an earlier death, whereas there is MUCH evidence to propose a May 3 death. This do not mean one cannot suggest minor consideration of an alternative theory, just that there is far more evidence to support an accident and coverup on May 3. Theories need to be kept in perspective as well as suspects. When I analyze a case for law enforcment, I will state that the evidence (that is available to us at that point in the investigation) leads me to believe is the most likely to have happened and who should be the top suspect. All profiles are working profiles and if more evidence comes in, the analysis is updated. The profile and crime analysis of the evidence is meant to guide detectives in the right direction to get more evidence. And until there is enough evidence for arrest and prosecution and then enough evidence to convict, the theory has not been proven (even in court, sometimes, the theory cannot be proven or can be proven wrongly if one has a clever defense or prosecution and a jury who falls for what is presented to them; hence, why Casey Anthony got off).

Anonymous said...


Yes, I agree with you Pat.

Given that the Smith sighting was only 5 mins walk from the holiday apartment and within the 8.30 pm - 10 pm time frame it was potentially a very important sighting (for any innocent set of parents) to consider

If I remember correctly, weren't the McCann's upset that the PJ did not publicise the Tanner sighting? Wasn't this one of the reasons given that they were promoting it themselves? If so, why not Smithman also? After all, Tannerman could have been a man innocently carrying their child home from the creche couldn't he? (He was, according to Scotland Yard) so Smithman could easily have been the abductor.

In some ways Smithman was the more logical abductor, the McCanns needed to go to some length to fit Tannerman in, between Gerry's check and Jane's sighting (approx. 5 mins max). Within those few mins Tannerman had to open the window and shutters and climb out with a child in his arms and walk around the carpark. Kate apparently suspected from the start that the children may have been sedated too, so the abductor must have found time to do this also.

Furthermore the McCanns suspected he had already been hiding in the apartment while Gerry was there, squashed behind the bedroom door. And then Matthew checked and didn't notice the window was open.

From all this you might think that two parents searching for their child would conclude that Smithman was the most likely abductor after all, he would have had at least a few more minutes to sedate the children, open windows and leave the apartment without being seen.

Any parent in the McCann's position, searching for their child, would wish to draw a lot of attention to Smithman and the e-fit sketches in my opinion.







AnneGuedes said...

A funny little detail about the timeline being pushed forward.
"Half and hour later, without anything to report, it being 22h03, he turned to alert Kate that it was time for her to go to see the children." (2nd victim statement).
Among all the statements that made up the timeline, this is the unique precise time indication !
There's a good chance that this particular time entered for ever in Smithman's brain when, after crossing the Smith family, he had a look at his watch, because he suddenly realized that from then on he would badly need an alibi.

AnneGuedes said...

Will that be carterrucked ?
https://www.amazon.com/DOUBT-Madeleine-McCann-Mystery-Gone-ebook/dp/B06ZYP2BMN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492310021&sr=8-1&keywords=nick+van+der+Leek

Anonymous said...

I`m coming round to your conclusions Pat.
If it was GM, where was he headed ? - get to the end of that street (Rua da Escola Primeria) turn to his left and in between the Royal Garden Restaurant and Sunpoint Properties Estate Agents are the flats which must be number 4 Rua de 25 Abril - and who lived there? Whose address was Rua de 25 April,4 Bloco C Apartmento J 8600 ? I`ll give you a clue - he`s Russian and an internet pal of RM.
Louisee

Anonymous said...

So if Smithman was Gerry what a remarkable coincidence that Jane Tanner also saw a man carrying a child in her nightwear very similar to Madeleine's. Two men wandering around carrying sleeping children on a cold night. A coincidence too far for me. Of course if Jane Tanner was lying Redwood certainly stepped in to put a shine on her story. To find the very same man who she saw . Why hadn't he come forward before? Of course if Tanner was lying the OG smacks at a cover up job. Why?

Anonymous said...

Is this where you mean about Monte do Jose Mestra where GM`s phone pinged? This is the last house up that road, bird`s eye views at beginning and end of video.
https://youtu.be/bjGrzcFlEhM

Peter Claridge said...

The timelines that they created must be read in conjunction with Dianne Websters original statements and her Rogatory statement; she had no involvement with the timelines. All, bar Webster were aware of Madeleine's fate before that evenings meal, she was made aware prior to the Rogatories.

pilchard said...

My guess was that the reason you weren't in the album was because you were the designated photographer of the family! But hey ho.. :-)

Anonymous said...

If all this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't I'm a firm believer that there's much wrong about this case, how on earth did they go to dinner as planned and appear normal. They must be brilliant actors or as cold as ice.
I find that to be beyond the acts of normal parents, but we've seen that they aren't normal parents in a lot of ways haven't we.
Also if the father was carrying Madeleine around town why no cadaver on his clothes? and why so much government help? It's all so hard to understand.
Having said this I believe this to be the closest to the truth, this case is so confusing and conflicting and the parents have encouraged that which doesn't make sense if you're genuinely looking for your 'abducted' child, surely you'd do anything even if it made you look bad?
Tricia

Anonymous said...

Pat what's happening with the Australia program. Can we expect a truthful account

Anonymous said...

I am from Australia and the program that you mention isn't exactly regarded as one of our top journalistic master pieces. I watched it, half knowing that it wouldn't provide any new information. It's a very tabloid program, and out for ratings and sensationalism. The only documentary type shows worth watching in this country come from our ABC or SBS channels. The commercial networks are getting worse and worse by the day. I honestly wouldn't bother suing anyone over what was said on that program; most people take it with a grain of salt anyway!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat x