Pat Brown

Autumn wrote:

Angelina wrote:

Iris wrote:

Angelina wrote:I can understand why she doesn't want to publicise things but I do find it difficult to believe that the hotels do not have internet or that there are no internet cafes. Even apartments usually have some sort of internet access.

Wasn't that the excuse that the Phantom Sponsored Walker Of Spain gave us, for lack of updates?

Well that was an obvious joke right from the start and I didn't believe one word of it and nor did many others probably.

This time a lot of people are hanging on Pat's every word and getting their hopes up. I have a feeling they will all be disappointed.

Angelina I think most of us here have followed this case long enough to know that it's best be cautious about getting our hopes up. Even if we woke up to breaking news on tv accompanied by pictures of the tapas bunch being taken away to police stations I still think many would adopt the 'well let's wait and see' stance before saying much.
There have been many disappointments along the way but I think the fact that Pat, being a professional criminal profiler who regularly talks about the case on tv/radio in the US, gives us very good reason to be hopeful. She may not find anything in Portugal but one thing is certain, she is raising the profile of this case in the US where she is free to speak her mind.

Autumn,

She may be raising the profile in the US, but what does that actually mean? Zilch really because it's nothing to do with the US. The case is under the jurisdiction of Pt who plainly do not want to re-open it or need strong evidence to re-open it and I don't see where that evidence is going to come from. If it existed then it would already have been used or, as is often said, political interference is keeping it hidden.

I'm sure that Pat Brown is genuinely doing what she thinks is right but, unfortunately, I think she's destined to fail.

Hi Angelina, nothing will change until the mass public start asking the questions we have been asking for the last 5 years. If their oxygen supply (the Fund) is cut off due to public donations not rolling in via books etc, then they will, inturn, become less powerful as they will not have the money to sue everyone who doubts them. And this is where Pat is already making inroads, voicing her doubts via US media in an articulate and good natured manner. Also worth noting is that she has a following of thousands on Twitter and becoming more well known here in the UK by the day.

Do not underestimate people power imo ordinary people like us would not be on forums discussing and researching this case if we thought our efforts were futile. Now we have a credible and personable figurehead who connects well with the public in the shape of Pat Brown, things are definetly looking up.

MaryB wrote:I know this is going to sound pessimistic but it's on my mind so here goes! Who in PDL is going to talk to Pat because everybody who gets involved in the case and speaks out seems to be taken to court or sued and threatened with prison. But I hope Pat does find something of significance. And I also wonder if it is wise to do this with the review going on. And I thought private investigators weren't allowed to operate in Portugal. I think I read that somewhere ages ago.

Its OK Pat is not a private investigator she is a profiler and as such I imagine she will go as far as she can and she will look into as much as she can and she will not report on much apart from keeping us all interested in things she wants us to see until she sits back looks at her notes and then no doubt her report will be made. She would be foolish if she were to start making statements about what she has found and the decisions she has made until the very end. We are
all too aware as to how some of our conclusions have altered over the last 5 years simply because new facts emerged.

Plus we have not employed her and she is not obliged to tell us anything we are very lucky we are privy to the facts/photos/video she has allowed us to see and I for one am grateful to what info she has given us.

I wouldn't want her saying too much for the lovely Madame McCann to pour scorn over in her new instalment of the McCann Lies.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What about the Window?


After I posted my first blog of this series, we had quite a rousing discussion over the issues of lighting in Praia da Luz in 2007 and if an abductor would feel unnerved going in and out of a window at that location (I am speaking of using this window for purposes of child abduction, not a lesser crime).

#1 Because the lighting was not horrifically deficient and the window was not positioned in a location where it would be extremely unlikely for someone to observe an abductor moving in and out of a window (and, for that matter, quite high odds that someone could observe the crime even though Praia da Luz was not flooded with visitors at the time the McCanns were there), I do not believe an abductor would have targeted the apartment by way of the front window.

But suppose this abductor did decide he really wanted the child inside and he couldn't access the doors. Perhaps he was willing to take a chance going in the window at a time he observed the parents had left the children without any adult supervision.

Could he pull up the shutters, open the window, and climb into the apartment without causing any damage, being heard, or leaving evidence? The McCanns say they believe the window was locked (but not absolutely positive) and the shutters were down. If you are inside the house and you want to open the shutters, you must pull on a cord which raises them (pictured above). If you want to break in, you must push them up; they make a horrible noise and they don't stay up...they go up 4/5 of the way and then fall back down. In the video you can see retired British police officer, PM, giving it a go (this video is distorted due to an unfortunate sideways filming and when compressed for uploading, stretched the horizontal dimension; PM is tall and very fit as you will see in future photos ...sorry, PM!)




So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

My next post will focus on who could have come in and out the doors.

Does anyone have any ideas who the ex british cop is?

bootsy wrote:Does anyone have any ideas who the ex british cop is?

No... but there's a retired British detective (living in PdL) interviewed in this video.
Probably not the same cop but an interesting video to watch all the same!

Annabel wrote:


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Velvet wrote:

Annabel wrote:


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Still in that case there would be another problem. The front door was locked (as in the story of the McCanns) so in that case the "abductor" must have left via the patiodoors. Impossible because in that case he couldn't leave the way Tanner saw the "abductor" with child leave. And because of Gerry and Wilkins standing there. talking.

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Annabel wrote:


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Still in that case there would be another problem. The front door was locked (as in the story of the McCanns) so in that case the "abductor" must have left via the patiodoors. Impossible because in that case he couldn't leave the way Tanner saw the "abductor" with child leave. And because of Gerry and Wilkins standing there. talking.

And would this abductor have raised the shutters too? There was enough of a breeze, don't forget, to make the curtains go "whoosh." Then there's fingerprints/glove marks on the window, of which there were none. In the small window of opportunity, did the abductor have enough time to open the window and the shutters and wipe everything down that he touched?

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Annabel wrote:


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Still in that case there would be another problem. The front door was locked (as in the story of the McCanns) so in that case the "abductor" must have left via the patiodoors. Impossible because in that case he couldn't leave the way Tanner saw the "abductor" with child leave. And because of Gerry and Wilkins standing there. talking.

Is it possible he could have walked through the opened patio doors and left through the front door as its the closest exit to the childrens bedroom?

AnnaEsse wrote:

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Annabel wrote:


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Still in that case there would be another problem. The front door was locked (as in the story of the McCanns) so in that case the "abductor" must have left via the patiodoors. Impossible because in that case he couldn't leave the way Tanner saw the "abductor" with child leave. And because of Gerry and Wilkins standing there. talking.

And would this abductor have raised the shutters too? There was enough of a breeze, don't forget, to make the curtains go "whoosh." Then there's fingerprints/glove marks on the window, of which there were none. In the small window of opportunity, did the abductor have enough time to open the window and the shutters and wipe everything down that he touched?

Glove marks?! When there was a burglary in my home all my windows were open and the one had the blinds (granted they they were vertical not slat) but non the less pushed to the side. When forensics came down they said they must have used gloves as there was no sign on any of the windows of intrusion. I watched him and indeed there was nothing. He very kindly then shown me how a finger print would come up by using his own fingerprint on something. So yes I believe the 'abductor' could have opened the shutters (my robber did!) and whilst using gloves that left no marks!! It takes seconds to open a window and shutter and in turn could save him from getting caught if someone walked in, so of course that's the first thing you would do. That was also the explanation by the police to me about my windows/blinds being messed with! I'm not saying I think is what happened but it is a possibility therefore I wont rule it out.

Those shutters, are they the actual shutters off 3a?



If they are, how many times have they been opened and shut?


50.....100?


Everybody knows that opening and shutting something that is very stiff 'loosens' them.

I believe that if they are the shutters off 3a what you are seeing is what you are left with today after 5 years ..loose broken shutters...KNOWONE has bought the apt so KNOWONE has mended the shutters....5 years ago the shutters were stiff and hard to open

Velvet wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet wrote:

Annabel wrote:


So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Still in that case there would be another problem. The front door was locked (as in the story of the McCanns) so in that case the "abductor" must have left via the patiodoors. Impossible because in that case he couldn't leave the way Tanner saw the "abductor" with child leave. And because of Gerry and Wilkins standing there. talking.

And would this abductor have raised the shutters too? There was enough of a breeze, don't forget, to make the curtains go "whoosh." Then there's fingerprints/glove marks on the window, of which there were none. In the small window of opportunity, did the abductor have enough time to open the window and the shutters and wipe everything down that he touched?

Glove marks?! When there was a burglary in my home all my windows were open and the one had the blinds (granted they they were vertical not slat) but non the less pushed to the side. When forensics came down they said they must have used gloves as there was no sign on any of the windows of intrusion. I watched him and indeed there was nothing. He very kindly then shown me how a finger print would come up by using his own fingerprint on something. So yes I believe the 'abductor' could have opened the shutters (my robber did!) and whilst using gloves that left no marks!! It takes seconds to open a window and shutter and in turn could save him from getting caught if someone walked in, so of course that's the first thing you would do. That was also the explanation by the police to me about my windows/blinds being messed with! I'm not saying I think is what happened but it is a possibility therefore I wont rule it out.

Not "jemmied", then.

kitti wrote:Those shutters, are they the actual shutters off 3a?



If they are, how many times have they been opened and shut?


50.....100?


Everybody knows that opening and shutting something that is very stiff 'loosens' them.

I believe that if they are the shutters off 3a what you are seeing is what you are left with today after 5 years ..loose broken shutters...KNOWONE has bought the apt so KNOWONE has mended the shutters....5 years ago the shutters were stiff and hard to open

Sorry I have no idea what your trying to say.

I think, Velvet, that Kitti is pointing out that shutters that were stiff in the Spring of 2007 may well be quite free after 5 years of people opening and closing them...

Iris wrote:

Velvet wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet wrote:

I don't believe that's the only other possibility. An abductor could have entered through a door, opened the window from the inside in means of an emergency escape, didn't need to use it so went back out the door with Madeleine not shutting the window as he left.( Which of course would make sense as he would have Madeleine in his arms.) That would also explain the lack of tell tale signs of anyone climbing through the window, because noone did!!

Still in that case there would be another problem. The front door was locked (as in the story of the McCanns) so in that case the "abductor" must have left via the patiodoors. Impossible because in that case he couldn't leave the way Tanner saw the "abductor" with child leave. And because of Gerry and Wilkins standing there. talking.

And would this abductor have raised the shutters too? There was enough of a breeze, don't forget, to make the curtains go "whoosh." Then there's fingerprints/glove marks on the window, of which there were none. In the small window of opportunity, did the abductor have enough time to open the window and the shutters and wipe everything down that he touched?

Glove marks?! When there was a burglary in my home all my windows were open and the one had the blinds (granted they they were vertical not slat) but non the less pushed to the side. When forensics came down they said they must have used gloves as there was no sign on any of the windows of intrusion. I watched him and indeed there was nothing. He very kindly then shown me how a finger print would come up by using his own fingerprint on something. So yes I believe the 'abductor' could have opened the shutters (my robber did!) and whilst using gloves that left no marks!! It takes seconds to open a window and shutter and in turn could save him from getting caught if someone walked in, so of course that's the first thing you would do. That was also the explanation by the police to me about my windows/blinds being messed with! I'm not saying I think is what happened but it is a possibility therefore I wont rule it out.

Not "jemmied", then.

Well no, you cannot 'jemmie' vertical blinds. But that doesn't mean an abductor from the inside couldn't have messed with the shutters, does it?

nospinnaker wrote:I think, Velvet, that Kitti is pointing out that shutters that were stiff in the Spring of 2007 may well be quite free after 5 years of people opening and closing them...

Thank you nonspinnaker! I still don't understand what that's got to do with an apparent abductor that night, maybe I need my second coffee of the morning to wake me up properly!!

In my experience they tend to become prone to jamming after prolonged use owing to wear in the mechanism and of the operating cord (Tape, really).

Velvet wrote: So yes I believe the 'abductor' could have opened the shutters (my robber did!) and whilst using gloves that left no marks!!

So not "jemmied", then.

It has nothing to do with the abductor because there wasnt one.

Can I just remark on the gloves....when i lived in a flat and got burgled, the burglar left scuff marks from him wearing gloves ...no finger prints though...


And perhaps I will be saying something out off hand here but I need to say it.....first off all I will get this out off the way....will she be mentioning the dogs and cadaver scent?

Will this be a project on....for the abduction and against the abduction?


I.e....the windows open easily and....they didn't stay up


There were no fingerprints and.....he could off used gloves


It's just that we have heard this all before And it's nothing new.


I don't want to say something but it dont stop me thinking it and in hope I am wrong about by thinking it.

kitti wrote:Can I just remark on the gloves....when i lived in a flat and got burgled, the burglar left scuff marks from him wearing gloves ...no finger prints though...


And perhaps I will be saying something out off hand here but I need to say it.....first off all I will get this out off the way....will she be mentioning the dogs and cadaver scent?

Will this be a project on....for the abduction and against the abduction?


I.e....the windows open easily and....they didn't stay up


There were no fingerprints and.....he could off used gloves


It's just that we have heard this all before And it's nothing new.


I don't want to say something but it dont stop me thinking it and in hope I am wrong about by thinking it.

No doubt you aren't the only one thinking it kitti

T4two wrote:

kitti wrote:Can I just remark on the gloves....when i lived in a flat and got burgled, the burglar left scuff marks from him wearing gloves ...no finger prints though...


And perhaps I will be saying something out off hand here but I need to say it.....first off all I will get this out off the way....will she be mentioning the dogs and cadaver scent?

Will this be a project on....for the abduction and against the abduction?


I.e....the windows open easily and....they didn't stay up


There were no fingerprints and.....he could off used gloves


It's just that we have heard this all before And it's nothing new.


I don't want to say something but it dont stop me thinking it and in hope I am wrong about by thinking it.

No doubt you aren't the only one thinking it kitti

Ditto.

You don't become neutral or a fence sitter after 5 years unless your have an agenda.

Read from bottom upwards.

Coming soon: The evidence does not support Jane Tanner´s sighting. #McCann

PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
However, I HAVE learned specific details first hand and these details matter. #McCann

7m PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Not all my conclusions are ªbombshellsª or never previously noted by myself or others. I´m building the probable sequence of events. #McCann

11m PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
I am comparing what I have learned in Praia da Luz against all the interviews and crime scene photos which is what is taking time. #McCann