Pat Brown

chrissie wrote:

Angelina wrote:Was there actually a towel found in a barn...I was under the impression it was forum myth?

It was an Aztec towel. There is an Sunday Express article dated 2 December 2007 on MCF but I'm not sure if I am allowed to bring it across to here.

AZTEC TOWELS ARE USED BY HOTELS?

marxman wrote:

Lioned wrote:The Smith sighting would have been timed at between 10.00 and 10.15 according to the files.

gerry checked on the children at 21.05/21.15

tanner saw bundleman at about 21.20

Oldfields 'check ' at 21.30 ?

kate found Maddie gone at 22.00

Dont know what Pat Browns getting at really ?

HI lioned, I brought this over from Pat's site;

Indeed! What is important is all three of them were there. What does it really matter if all three of them are there? What does it matter if Jane Tanner saw the man five minutes later when she returned and neither man was on the street? It matters because Jeremy Wilkins gives Gerry an alibi. No, not Jane. Jane Tanner is not that useful in giving Gerry an alibi because she is one of the Tapas 9. Jeremy Wilkins is the LAST UNBIASED WITNESS who saw Gerry before Madeleine was found missing and before the Smiths’ 9:50-9:55 sighting of a man carrying a little child toward the beach.» http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-how.html

As you will see, Smith's sighting indicated as 9.50-9.55

Thanks for that .I still make the Smith sighting a little later as they had to walk away from Kellys bar.In any event i'm still not getting the 'abduction' if gerry was at the table business !

Could this have been the pink blanket ?


" After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.

Angelina wrote:

chrissie wrote:

Angelina wrote:Was there actually a towel found in a barn...I was under the impression it was forum myth?

It was an Aztec towel. There is an Sunday Express article dated 2 December 2007 on MCF but I'm not sure if I am allowed to bring it across to here.

Thanks. Don't worry about a link, I'll have search and try and find it

Think this is it:

Mccann's Expess News: "Now Hunt Centres on Disused Barn"
2nd Dec 2007

The hunt for Madeleine McCann last night centred on a disused barn near Praia da Luz where police found a towel stained with what may turn out to be the little girl's blood.

Fibres found on the towel allegedly match fibres from the hire car rented by Maddie's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.

Portuguese detectives discussed the breakthrough when they met British police and a Crown Prosecution Service official last week at a police station in Leicester.

Today, for the first time the Sunday Express can shed light on the new avenue police are pursuing in the hope of a breakthrough in the baffling case.

Based on fresh information from mobile phone surveillance, police began a search of an area in the south east of the resort. They came across a towel, with an Aztec design, near a disused barn in a remote area close to Praia da Luz.

Portuguese sources say forensic scientists used a substance called Luminol to look for blood deposits and found three sites on the edges of the towel. They tested the blood deposits to see if there was a match with Madeleine's DNA.

Although the samples were not good quality the scientists were able to do what is called low copy analysis, which showed there was "moderate” support to suggest the blood deposits matched Madeleine's blood.

The results were not conclusive and are not regarded as being strong enough to be presented as evidence in any court case.

They also found a loaf and a carrier bag, which produced no significant information, but close analysis of the towel revealed fibres which were not made of the towel material. The fibre fragments were microscopically examined against fibres found in the boot of the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns 25 days after Maddie vanished.

Portuguese police sources say there was "strong support" that the fibres found on the towel matched fibres from the boot of the car.

One possibility being considered by the Portuguese detectives was that the towel had at some point been in the boot of the Renault Scenic, which would explain how fibres had got on it.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12/mccanns-expess-news.html

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Individual-Topics/Pink-Blanket-1-900433.html


Maddie’s Blanket Missing from the Ocean Club
1 July 2009 ("Joana Morais");


Could it have been used in a funerary ceremony at the Luz chapel? Gonçalo Amaral doesn't dismiss that as possibility.

(....)


[McCann Case: 'The British Priest Staged Everything'
1 July 2009 | Posted by makeprofilelink("Joana Morais"); Joana Morais
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/07/british-priest-staged-everything.html
We went to Praia da Luz to speak with Father José Manuel – the priest of the local church – who accompanied all the sequence of events, lived after the disappearance of the English girl. Refuting all knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the blanket, the Father also denies the insinuations against his past.

Have you participated in all of the British community celebrations?-
In all.

And, specifically, you participated in religious acts for the girl Madeleine. Have you ever noticed in the existence of a pink blanket that belonged to the child?-
I participated, but I don’t know anything. The British priest, called by Madeleine parents, it was him who celebrated all the masses. In that context, the only thing that I could do for her was to pray. The other priest is the one who knows a lot – and he staged everything – it was him who made statements and who spoke to the PJ.

But, where could Maddie’s blanket be?
-It would be good to know, it’s possible that the other priest and the PJ know.

The PJ doesn’t know. Does that mean that they have ‘lost’ the evidence?-
I don’t know anything; I only know that, when everything was too ‘hot’, various stories were told, badly told and even more about me: that I was ‘exiled’ to the Vatican to speak with the Pope… Just because I missed 2 or three days, I was made an ‘exiled’.

Was it normal to hand out the church keys?- It’s not me who decides. [silence]

There are some who have accused you of, when you where at the Gaia Seminary, having participated in act of harassment and sexual abuse.- It’s all a lie; the media have nothing else to do. It is easy to attack the image of a priest. But, at this moment the defamers are being sued.


in Semanário Privado, 1 July 2009 - Paper Editon Only

ELI wrote:Could this have been the pink blanket ?


" After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.

t



They were given a towel to sniff that Madeleine was supposed to off used.


Who was to know WHOSE towel or blanket it belonged to.

NoStone wrote:

Angelique wrote:Annabel

Thank you for posting this article.

Seems as though suspicions regarding the Met are obvious even to Pat Brown. What on earth are they doing spending all the tax payers money on if they need to be told by Pat they should have started with a reconstruction. Strewth! I remember suggesting this myself!

It makes it clearer theat the brief given to the Met is - there has been an abduction - now review what happened from there - otherwise they would have done the logical thing and started at the very beginning.

All I can think of is that Scotland Yard are doing a review right now, when they have their findings and report it to the PJ isn't it THEN that they ask for a reconstruction by the Doctors (into each other) and Tapas friends.
I read at the begining of the "Review" that it will be done behind closed doors, we would not know the outcome that it will be handed over to the PJ, and finally it is ONLY the PJ that can re-open and get the reconstruction underway........or Im I wrong, please correct me if I am.

Did Madeleine have her OWN towel to Use ...doubt it...it was probably used by ALL the children.


Did the children have a bath that night.....we don't know.

My betting is.....the MET will come to their own conclusion and the mccanns will have a field day with these findings...


I dont think the PJ have been Included in this review ....it's independent And will be a whitewash in favour off want they have been told what conclusion to come to in favour off an abduction.


It's up to the PJ what they do about these Findings as they contradict THERE findings.


Perhaps the pj will just let it go as the burden will now lie with the British authorities ...for all we know it could off been 'negotiated ' between the two countries BEORE the review .

The British police are entitled to do their own review and come to their own conclusion even if it doesn't come to the same conclusion as the other party and THAT is the crux off why the mccanns want this review....

The British papers will print 'cleared' 'exonerated'....whatever word they choose to use and the british public will read this and whatever was said in the past regarding the PJ will be forgotten and it could even be on wiki that the British have 'cleared'....end off story and the 'abductor' is still out there....mccanns fade away....Madeleine is forgotten ....



That is my opinion off course and as far as GM saying that he doesnt care who does the review....he's a lier....why would he want the pj to do it, they would come to the same conslusion as they did before...back to square one.

kitti wrote:Did Madeleine have her OWN towel to Use ...doubt it...it was probably used by ALL the children.


Did the children have a bath that night.....we don't know.

If she didn't even have her own toothbrush, what chance is there that she would have had a whole towel to herself?

kitti wrote:The British police are entitled to do their own review and come to their own conclusion even if it doesn't come to the same conclusion as the other party and THAT is the crux off why the mccanns want this review....

The British papers will print 'cleared' 'exonerated'....whatever word they choose to use and the british public will read this and whatever was said in the past regarding the PJ will be forgotten and it could even be on wiki that the British have 'cleared'....end off story and the 'abductor' is still out there....mccanns fade away....Madeleine is forgotten ....



That is my opinion off course and as far as GM saying that he doesnt care who does the review....he's a lier....why would he want the pj to do it, they would come to the same conslusion as they did before...back to square one.

Kitti - For the Met to weave a story of innocence when the Mc's were guilty would be as bad as them fitting them up as guilty - if they were innocent. We all know that these things have a habit of unravelling in time so I dont think they would risk that. Besides a whitewash would be so strongly challenged - esp as the start of the abduction thesis is based on such flimsy evidence and the word of the Mc's themselves. Full stop.

No one can come up with new evidence such as a new sighting of an abductor as that would spark the re-opening of the case by the PJ. Having started off this review process Cameron must wonder how it is going to come to a conclusion as once again the Mc's have managed to paint other people into a corner. I bet a lot of people are spending a lot of time and money trying to figure out a credible end game - the alternative is an aweful lot of people go to jail for a long time.

One question though!? Who takes precedence - MI5 or the Met?? If MI5 decide the matter is of 'national security' - can that prevent the Met from conducting an investigation?? Is this another painted corner?? All this in order to ensure justice for a poor 3 year old girl - well its worth it IMO. Just a thought!!

But this is what I dont understand.....SY did not speak to the PJ when they went to portugual, instead, they decided to go to a place where.....'you got me dorta' sighting was.....we all know that was fake, so why go there...why go to met 3 offices who we know were being payed to bribe people to fake a sighting....why go to Barcelona at all, that's what I want to know.


And.....the MET already knew about the case as well SY because they were involved from the beginning....so why are they doing a review off a case that they are already up to date with....surely being police officers and supposedly not dumb, they know what could off happened way back on 2007, they don't need to read the files as they have aleady done so...so what's going on?



It doesn't take 3m to review a case that THEY have had the details about and the conclusions off from the pj and British police since 2007.

I think it's worth it too but it's only worth it if they write the truth and that, I'm afraid, I have doubt about and you could be rightn about MI5 wanting it kept secret but then again ...what has a missing child got to do with national security...perhaps we should ask Clarence Mitchell that question .

kitti wrote:Did Madeleine have her OWN towel to Use ...doubt it...it was probably used by ALL the children.


Did the children have a bath that night.....we don't know.

We don't know for certain if she did or not but once again, the dogs were deployed about 10 times during that 4 day period, with the sole purpose of attempting to locate a scent trail and they all followed the same route starting from Apt.5A. What are the chances of different dogs on different days locating and following the same scent trail ( whatever or whoevers scent it was ) and all being wrong.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

‎"Did a Kidnapper Muck with Anything?" My new blog post at The Daily Profiler. http://​patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/​2012/02/​criminal-profiling-topic-of-day​-did.html #McCann

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did a Kidnapper Muck with Anything?

Evidence does not have to be in the form of forensic evidence - DNA, fingerprints, hair, physical damage, etc. - for a case to be built and for guilt to be proven in a court of law. Although it is very popular today for juries to rely more and more on forensics to come up with a guilty verdict, direct testimony and circumstantial evidence without any forensics at all can still be enough to prove someone's guilt. If thirty people give direct testimony that Joe Smith came into the room with a rifle and gunned down a bunch of people, this would be pretty good evidence even if Joe ran off with the gun and ditched it down a mineshaft.

Likewise, Jane Tanner's eyewitness testimony could be credible if there was not the question of her actually being on the street when and where she said she was (since two other eyewitness accounts state she was not there at all). Add to this, issues over whether the lighting was good enough and the witness close enough for her to have really have seen a man carrying a child, a child in specific clothing, and likely, this testimony would be torn to shreds in court. So let's move to the circumstantial evidence in this case. The McCanns made an effort to build the case for an abductor from circumstantial evidence that did not include forensics of any sort. The theory is that an abductor was hiding in the room while Gerry was checking on the children. This theory is based on the timing of the raised shutters and open window and the ever-changing position of the bedroom door. And, of course, Jane Tanner's sighting. But let's stay with the physical evidence for now.

If all these things can validate a stranger in the room at the very time Gerry is in the apartment, then Jane Tanner's story gets a boost because as soon as Gerry walked out the sliding doors, the abductor would grab Maddie from the bed and run out of the front door, crossing the street just in time for Jane to see him. There is nothing wrong with developing a theory based on such things, if, in the end, these things are supportable in some way and make logical sense when the day is done. It still doesn't mean it is true, but at least it could be a good theory. And, if the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence really holds water, that theory may be good enough to accept as a factual rendition of what indeed did happen and eventually will stand up in a court of law as part of a criminal case. Okay, so can we find evidence to support Jane's 9:15 sighting and the hypothesis that a kidnapper was in the McCann apartment and in the children's room at the same time Gerry was?

IMPORTANT: FIRST STATEMENTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS. THERE IS MORE TRUTH IN THEM AND MORE ATTEMPTS TO QUICKLY STAGE (USING SIMPLE LIES) THAN IN LATER INTERVIEWS

May 4, 2007 Gerald McCann Witness Statement

Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club,using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.

At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked (so why is Gerry going through the front door?). He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.

At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key (Why is Kate not going through the sliding door?) and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.

It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, JANE, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. JANE will be better able to clarify this situation.

Okay, let's stop here. What we have learned is that Gerry says BOTH he and Kate used a key to enter the apartment through the locked front door. This would be consistent with a locked apartment which would not allow a stranger easy access and increase safety of the children staying alone in an exposed corner apartment.



Then Gerry immediately states that the sliding door was always left open which invalidates the behavior of going to the front door and using a key. Why? To me, in conjunction with other information, this appears to be an addition to his story which allows Matthew Oldfield to do a check at around 9:30 (even though members of the Tapas group did not do visual checks on each others' children previously).

But, what does Gerry say about the bedroom door? Nothing. He does not point out anything alarming about this door in his interview. And he even states that when Matthew went into the room that the shutters were closed and the door half-open as usual.

Gerry did not see the shutters raised nor the window open nor the door anything but half-open. In fact, everything was normal when he went into the apartment using his key. He saw his children (allegedly) and left because nothing was out of place (allegedly). He chats with Jes, doesn't see Jane, but wants Jane to tell her story of a man with a child she saw from behind and from a hell of a long way off.

Let's go to Matthew Oldfield's May 4th Witness Statement.


Gerry allegedly went into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that
Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door
was half-open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant.
In answer to a question from the inspector, the interviewee does not know if Gerry met anyone while
he was checking the children. He did not mention it.

At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on
the children. He states that the door of the fourth apartment (room?), that was occupied by
Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to
see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all
quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but
not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him
that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

Clearly, if the McCanns were fabricating a story, the one thing they can't have happen is for the abductor to have taken Maddie before Gerry checks since Gerry is supposed to have seen the child at around 9:10 pm. So, the room should have to be dark at that time. Interestingly though, at this point, Gerry is not saying the door was anything but in the usual position which is corroborated by Matthew. The usual position seems to be half-open, at least at this point in the renditions.

Note that Matthew says he can see the children quite well (although Gerry could also in the dark as he looked at Madeleine and thought what a lucky man he was although, perhaps, we don't know, if another light from inside the apartment had been turned on and filtered through the door). Remember this until the end of the post. (It is odd though that he can also see an empty bed against the wall and, since he has never been in the apartment before to know where Maddie sleeps, the empty bed does not worry him enough to step in the room and see if Maddie is in the other one).


Now, to Kate McCann's May 4th Statement

At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.


Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself.

Kate mentions nothing in her statement about Matthew observing more light or a half-open door. Her statement appears to be the only one with a changed door position which would indicate that there was no proof "the abductor" was in the bedroom with Gerry. Furthermore, since Matthew said the door was half-open, then "the abductor" must have flung it the rest of the way open AFTER Matthew left the apartment (if he was ever even there).

You might stop and note that Kate, who gave her interview later in the day, is now entering the sliding door like Matthew, in spite of the fact Gerry says she used her key on the front door like him. One could think Gerry simply forgot how the both of them came into the apartment but it is highly unlikely he would not remember something so important the morning after. It is far more likely, as the hours went on, the story was altered to support the abductor theory. It is not uncommon to see fabrications develop as people attempt to convince someone of a particular story. I am not saying the McCanns and their friends did this, but the radical changes and inconsistencies in their stories are a red flag.

Interestingly, Jane Tanner rendition of her sighting of the man with the child is vastly different from the McCanns on May 4th. It is my belief both of them thought she was going to state that she saw a man going down the road behind her after she turned the corner, not before it, whenever it was she went for her check, if she even did. If you have read any of Jane's interviews, they are far, far longer than anyone else's; Jane has motormouth and simply can not keep it simple. I believe she may have overdone her scenario and, in doing so, added in Jerry and Jes and ended up with a problem of not being seen by Gerry and Jes. Later, as often happens when someone is trying to convince the police and public something happened, the McCanns may have worked to make her story fit because it gives Gerry an alibi at the time "the abductor" is seen.

Of course, then if the Jane saw the abductor while Gerry was talking to Jes, then the abductor had to be in the room with Gerry; hence; the shifting door story evolves.



Some very fascinating things comes from the McCann own documentary, Madeleine was Here (Part One: 00:10-1:30)

I did my check about ten o'clock. I went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood actually... and thought, oh, all quiet....and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn around... I just noticed the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we left it. I went to close it to about here and then as it got to here, it suddenly (Kate slams the door shut) slammed and then as I opened it..... it was then that I thought I would look at the children...at Sean and Amelie in the cots (which she could not have seen in her demonstration because the she has the door nearly closed with just room for her face to peep in at Madeleine)....all of which negates her May 4th statement that she immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open.

And I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here....and it was dark and I was looking...is that Madeleine or is that the bedding....I couldn't quite make it out.

So it seems to be much, much darker than when Matthew was there or Matthew has far better eyes than Kate or he made up that it was lighter if he was ever even in the room (and it may be impossible at this late stage to reenact the exact lighting circumstances of the night, but it seems the shutters being raised doesn't change the lighting in the room substantially from Kate's view; however, if one argues this point, then it being lighter for Matthew is meaningless as well). Her story is radically different from her original statement and it would seem in an effort to dramatize the event, the facts don't quite jibe.

So, what do the facts prove? That no abductor could have been in the room until after Matthew was there and Kate's statement about what happened when she came to the apartment has questionable elements. So does Gerry's and so does Matthews and so does Jane's. It is no wonder why the PJ questioned their involvement and that there was ever an abduction. Even if you chalk up all these inconsistencies to bad memories and distraught witnesses, what they have stated hardly offers any support for Jane Tanner's 9:15 sighting or an abductor hiding in the children's bedroom during Gerry's check. The statements and McCann reenactments, in fact, caused the police and others to question their involvement and rightly so.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm

Pamalam

Ooooh errrrr! 'Slip of the Tongue' or an explanation why the twin beds are pushed together and the position of the pillow. I wonder if the report that Matt had been re-interviewed was correct.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id155.html

Photo 17

Just picked this up from the Amazon discussion:


PAT BROWN ‏ @ProfilerPatB



My new novel will be out on Amazon and B&N in less than 48 hours!

Pats profiling is brilliant as always, making total logical sense of the facts. From the facts, if we are to believe jane tanners sighting (sure there are people gullible enough) then the abductors only 'small window of opportunity' would be from when gerry went to do his check (when he last saw Maddie) and met Jez outside. This gives the abductor about 1 or 2 mins at most to get out of the apartment by escaping via the window & shutters so jane tanner could see murat him up the road. Shutters that kept falling down even though he was inside to pull them open with the chord despite the fact the mccanns say the shutters were jemmied from outside!! Anyway....gerry and Jez were right outside the apartment talking at the only 'small window of opportunity' the abductor would have had if jane tanner saw him a few mins later ....How come then does gerry nor Jez see this abductor getting out of the apartment window/shutters? from where they were standing on the road one of them at least would have been facing the apartment window he escaped from....and neither of them not only saw nothing but heard no noise from the shutters too! Even someone with an IQ of 1 would not believe the mccanns version

Then we have Matt some 10 mins later saying everything was normal when he went to the apartment and the shutters/window were closed!!! And when kate went to the apartment 30 mins later the shutters were open again!!! Seriously, are we to believe the abductor went back to the apartment to just raise the shutters open again!!

Talk about completely contradicting your story lies!!

And why did the police make murat suspect based on jane tanners sighting at 9.15pm, when 15 mins later at 9.30pm Matt was in the apartment where everything was normal and shutters closed etc? Only the most stupid of persons that has ever lived on this planet would go back 30 mins later to 'create' a crime scene after they had escaped from it!!! This is absolutely laughable....and Louise Mensch MP thinks we are ghouls and jeremy vine says we need medical help. I seriously think the tapas 9, mitchell, directors of the Madeleine Fund are the ones that need the help

jd16 wrote:

<< And why did the police make murat suspect >>

I thought Murat requested Arguido status for himself?

jd

Oh I don't know - smack my hand but I think Murat was a stooge!

I hope it's okay to post this link to the first of an interesting series of articles by Tony Bennett about Robert Murat. I do feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions about his possible involvement.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Muratpt1.html