Pat Brown

almostgothic wrote:

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.

Same here but I will wait and see...

The statement that the evidence does not support Jane Tanner's sighting won't come as a shock to many that frequent this forum, so it's no bombshell, and at first I reckoned it was of no real consequence.

But on reflection, this is a statement of the findings of someone who has always had her own thoughts about the case, never conforming to a 'forum view' on either side, and her opinion has to count for something. The McCann camp are quick to pour contempt upon this lady as 'self taught' and 'making money out of a missing child' but she is her own person, she does have a track record of at the very least going and looking - which is more than most of us have done - and she is likely to publicise her findings.

Jane Tanner's famous sighting is one of the cornerstones of the McCann authorised version of events, and has been given a lot of weight by TM. Wasn't this the start of the 'pants of ganga' business? Does their fairy tale stand up if the Tanner sighting is discredited?

This could be the start of a large crack in the McCann story. Watch this space...

nospinnaker wrote:The statement that the evidence does not support Jane Tanner's sighting won't come as a shock to many that frequent this forum, so it's no bombshell, and at first I reckoned it was of no real consequence.

But on reflection, this is a statement of the findings of someone who has always had her own thoughts about the case, never conforming to a 'forum view' on either side, and her opinion has to count for something. The McCann camp are quick to pour contempt upon this lady as 'self taught' and 'making money out of a missing child' but she is her own person, she does have a track record of at the very least going and looking - which is more than most of us have done - and she is likely to publicise her findings.

Jane Tanner's famous sighting is one of the cornerstones of the McCann authorised version of events, and has been given a lot of weight by TM. Wasn't this the start of the 'pants of ganga' business? Does their fairy tale stand up if the Tanner sighting is discredited?

This could be the start of a large crack in the McCann story. Watch this space...

I SO hope your right, nospinnaker.

Me too.

I bet if JT has read this, or been told of it, she will be having an attack of the vapours or

nospinnaker wrote: This could be the start of a large crack in the McCann story. Watch this space...

Even a small crack will do - it'll soon get jemmied wide open.

If only Jane Tanner could be put in front of a judge she would break IMO.

Does anyone remember a tv documentary in which a group of 'experts' including John Stalker and Albert Kirby went to the MW Resort in PDL in 2007 and discussed the case? They examined the window of apartment 5A and just thinking the footage of that might be interesting to have another look at.

Anyone know where I might find it, sorry can't remember what it was called.

Autumn wrote:

Does anyone remember a tv documentary in which a group of 'experts' including John Stalker and Albert Kirby went to the MW Resort in PDL in 2007 and discussed the case? They examined the window of apartment 5A and just thinking the footage of that might be interesting to have another look at.

Anyone know where I might find it, sorry can't remember what it was called.

Just what I was thinking, Autumn. I don't think on that footage the shutters just lifted like on Pats video.
Be interesting to see again, if anyone knows where to find it.

This is what John Stalker thinks (apparently)


MCCANNS ‘ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET’
Sunday October 28 2007
By John Stalker



I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.



One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group – the Tapas Nine – remained so silent? My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.



Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other. After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.



Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth.



There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about.



While they continue to refuse to talk it is unlikely that we will find out what it is for a very long time but one thing is certain – it will eventually come out.



The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.



The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.



My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.



My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.



On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.



I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.



The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.



There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.



In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.



All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns’ hire car and on her mother’s clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.



If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine’s or the twins’ DNA on to his clothing.



I don’t believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.



All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.



Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.



But my gut instinct still forces me to wonder: What is the secret that the Tapas Nine are so carefully hiding?

In the video with the ex detective lifting the shutters up...

can the shutters be locked from the inside?

if so...are the shutters locked from the inside whilst he was lifting them up? or not?

if your looking in pat...

Details from the window, scroll down

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

Lots of incorrect and unprofessional assumptions and assertions in what Stalker said. No wonder he ended up fronting various TV Ads.

Twitter:

Coming soon: The evidence does not support Jane Tanner´s sighting. #McCann
4u PAT BROWN PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB



However, I HAVE learned specific details first hand and these details matter. #McCann
4u PAT BROWN PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB



Not all my conclusions are ªbombshellsª or never previously noted by myself or others. I´m building the probable sequence of events. #McCann
4u PAT BROWN PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB



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
21u PAT BROWN PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB



Profiling is always an ongoing examinations of evidence and possibilities; it isn´t about being for or against. #McCann

Thanks Annabel

This sounds interesting
However, I HAVE learned specific details first hand and these details matter. #McCann
4u PAT BROWN PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB

i like the last twit, that profiling isnt about whats for or against, its evidence and possibilities.

tanszi wrote:i like the last twit, that profiling isnt about whats for or against, its evidence and possibilities.

Hmm. Evidence ................. or Intelligence?

That's the thing - there is a great deal of Intelligence but, hitherto, not enough Evidence.

Velvet 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.

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?

Don't tell me the "abductor" had a key Don't you see, the story makes no sense at all.

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

And what would my agenda be? I have no agenda but do not categorically believe either way she was abducted/killed. Does that make me a bad person? A pro? A troll? No I'm someone with an open mind to what could have happened to Madeleine. I have had conversations on here about the dogs, where I originally thought they were wrong, and after discussing it and actually looking into them in more depth I cannot justify them being wrong. At the same time I do not see how a body could have been so well hidden in a country that they didn't particularly know very well. Forgive me if I don't fully agree with everyones opinions on here, however it makes me no more right or wrong on this subject than anyone else.

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet 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.

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?

Don't tell me the "abductor" had a key Don't you see, the story makes no sense at all.

Why would you need a key to get through an unlocked patio door?

Who the hell is talking about you velvet ......


And by the way, IT didn't go through the Patio doors, shall I tell you why....BRCAUSE THEY HAD PERFECT VISION from where they were sitting off the patio doors.


I can see the pub from ere.......

And let's not forget....they would off also HEARD IT going through the Patio doors as the shutters were down...

kitti wrote:Who the hell is talking about you velvet ......


And by the way, IT didn't go through the Patio doors, shall I tell you why....BRCAUSE THEY HAD PERFECT VISION from where they were sitting off the patio doors.


I can see the pub from ere.......

My apologies I thought the way you was referring to me. However I would like to know what and who you was referring to when you said you don't become a fence sitter after five years without an agenda?

kitti wrote:And let's not forget....they would off also HEARD IT going through the Patio doors as the shutters were down...

I'm being dense here, but there were shutters on the patio door?

Velvet wrote:

Bebootje wrote:

Velvet 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.

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?

Don't tell me the "abductor" had a key Don't you see, the story makes no sense at all.

Why would you need a key to get through an unlocked patio door?

Locked or unlocked?..................


Jon Corner was quoted in the Daily Telegraph of 07 May 2007:

'Jon Corner, a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said she telephoned him in the middle of the night distraught.

He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'

"They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage."