- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:16 PM
I guess it doesn't? unless you read the book/website AM3 talked about and the info and fb page of Pat Brown and believe what they "think" happened..
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:23 PM
Note: her comments appear to have been attributed mistakenly to Martin Smith in iza's earlier posts.
Aoife Smith (daughter of Martin Smith)
The deponent remembers that upon reaching the top of the stairs, she looked to her left and saw a man (1) with a female child (2) in his arms, walking along the pavement of Rua 25 de Abril. He was walking in her direction at a distance of, give or take, two metres.
— The deponent crossed to the other side of Rua 25 de Abril and began walking up Rua da Escola Primária in the direction of the Estrela da Luz apartment complex.
— She did not see if the referenced individual with the child descended Rua das Escadinhas or if he continued along Rua 25 de Abril.
— It was the first time she saw that man. She does not remember seeing him at any time in any location.
— She has seen photographs of Madeleine McCann and thinks that it could have been her. Asked, she said she was 60% certain.
— The description below made about the man and the female child that the witness saw was made at around 22H00, when the lighting was weak.
— Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Personal Description:
— (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal physical build, around 1,70/1,75 metres in height. At the time she saw his face but now cannot remember it. She thinks that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember seeing tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not notice his ears. His hair was thick-ish, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
— His trousers were smooth "rights" along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration.
— She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top.
— She did not see what shoes he was wearing.
— The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child.
— (2) the child was female because she had straight long hair to the neck. The colour was fair/light brown.
— She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and they were the same size.
— She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.
— There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but she only saw her back.
— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves. She did not see it well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was very light. The fabric was the same as the trousers.
— Questioned regarding the shoes, she responded that she did not remember seeing any shoes, not remembering if the child had any or not.
— Asked to tell the truth, she affirms that what she has finished declaring is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge.
— And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it inconformity, ratifies and signs together with her interpreter.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:24 PM
It thought it changed everything ?
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, who is heading the investigation, said: "The timeline we have now established has given new significance to sightings and movements of people in and around Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
"Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date.
"It has allowed us to work with Crimewatch to build the most detailed reconstruction as yet, and highlight very specific appeal points.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
It would also seem to indicate that what was previously 'accepted' as fact isn't fact ?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:25 PM
@azureline** wrote:http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com.au/
Thanks for that.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:27 PM
With regard to Pat Brown, this makes interesting reading.
Scroll down to "Basic Misinformation in Brown’s Profile
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:27 PM
have you had anyone charged yet?
your bound to solve it soon
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:30 PM
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:;we now know that their friend (a key witness) did not see the abductor at 9.15pm did she ?
At around 9.15 Jane Tanner saw somebody carrying a child and police quite logically concluded the man she saw might well have ben the abductor. Based on that evidence, everybody (including the McCanns) assumed that sometime around 9.15 was the most likely time of the abduction.
Now that possibility has been discounted the focus has shifted to the man Martin Smith saw and the likely time of the abduction has been altered to around 10.00.
How does that affect anybody's credibility.
It doesn't at all. Unless your only source of information are unreliable sources like blog opinions.
1. Police (Portugese?) never bothered to trace the man seen carrying a girl at 90.15pm
2. Police (Portugese?) never bothered to investigate further Mr Smith's witness statement.
In light of the above the timeline has changed ... no conspiracy, hidden motives there.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:33 PM
It would also seem to indicate that what was previously 'accepted' as fact isn't fact ?
The only fact it changes is that the man Jane Tanner saw at 9.40 could not have been the abductor. It doesn't change her testimony or anybody elses - it merely shifts the time frame for the abduction.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:34 PM
@*mrgrizz* wrote:have you had anyone charged yet?
your bound to solve it soon
do you think that given the subject, those type of comments might be a bit inappropriate?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 17-10-2013 04:36 PM
@izabsmiling wrote:It thought it changed everything ?
Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, who is heading the investigation, said: "The timeline we have now established has given new significance to sightings and movements of people in and around Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
"Our work to date has significantly changed the timeline and the accepted version of events that has been in the public domain to date.
"It has allowed us to work with Crimewatch to build the most detailed reconstruction as yet, and highlight very specific appeal points.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24509235
It would also seem to indicate that what was previously 'accepted' as fact isn't fact ?
The fact that friend Jane saw a man caryying a female child in the area at 9.15pm is still valid. (when she was doing a room check).
The change is the police (British?) have now been able to track that man down and remove him as a suspect. Years later.
Is that so hard to understand? Where is the 'conspiracy' in that? It is all down to what the police (Portugese & British) have or haven't done so far in the investigation of Maddie's disappearance.
Nothing at all to do with credibility of witnesses.
The Portugese police closed the investigation after 12 months approx.
The British police picked it up again later, obviously they are doing it there way and will find discrepancies, look into other statements etc that were overlooked the first time.
The Smiths (more than 1 of them) also saw a man caryying a female child at 10pm.. not seen as important before, but now the 9.15 sighting has been ruled out the timeline has shifted to 10pm.