Return of the Tramp

Well it seems Baldy is really rattled by Pat Brown

QUOTE    "For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw".    UNQUOTE

REPLY:    I cannot possibly agree with you that this is a fact.

Why not? It is.

These for example are a series of known and admitted facts about the McCanns and 'Smithman':

I doubt that somehow

1. Brian Kennedy, on behalf of the McCanns, contacted the Smiths in December 2007.

Where does that date come from? We know there was an earlier contact 

2. Newspaper articles on 3 January 2008 reported that Martin Smith was 'ready to meet Metodo 3' representatives.

Since when are newspaper articles ''evidence''? 

3. At some time probably in the spring of 2008 Henri Exton and maybe someone else from either Medoto 3 or Oakley International visited the Smiths and drew up two e-fits of faces who look quite different from each ofther.

They drew up two efits. It is your opinion that they look quite different to each other. One would expect two people to have a different recollection 

4. In the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' of May 2009, the McCanns TWICE referred to the 'Smithman sighting' in the film, stromgly suggesting that 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman' were one and the same.

But still placing the emphasis on the 'tannerman' sighting 

5. Immediately following the programme, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second audio recording onto their 'Find Madeleine' website of a man with an Irish accent clearly intended to be Martin Smith describing his alleged 'Smithman' sighting. It has been there ever since and is there today, over six-and-a-half years later. That audio recording of the 'Smithman sighting' has been there on their website for a conrinuous period of 2,375 days

And? 

6. Not only that, but in that audio recording, the voice gives the age of the suspected abductor as '34-35', a change from TWO previous statements by Martin Smith in which he had claimed that the man he said he saw was up to 40 years old. It is likely, though not proved, that Martin Smith must have consented to this SECOND change in his evidence.   

Why must he? Have you any evidence that this is the case?

The rest of the extent of the McCanns' use of Smithman is set out on this thread here:     

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008

That particular thread is the biggest load of old bollocks I have ever read 

I would respectfully invite you to read and consider what I've said there.

Pat, if I may say so, there is more than a hint of impatience, even possibly anger, in your recent articles which, in short, ask us all over here to accept as a fact that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May.

It is a fact. There are witnesses to her still being alive prior to this

Please accept that there is EVIDENCE, 'Facts' if you will, that suggest otherwise.

No there is not. Not a single scrap.

As a researcher and investigator yourself, please accept that some of us will continue to explore that evidence.

No-one expects you to stop looning 

And, if only just for a moment, please consider that you
may actually be mistaken about this.  

She isn't. 

- Very disappointed, Harlow 

Tough titties.