The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Mm11

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Mm11

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Regist10

Pat Brown - What about the Window

Page 8 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by C.Edwards 19.02.12 21:17

tigger wrote:C.Edwards: It's all in the PJ files, that's where I've read the statement of the laundry attendant.
Equally, the lichen story. It's a long trawl through all these again, but it is there.
The cleaner also gave a statement re the cleaning of the apartment on Wednesday and the cleaning of the windows.
Well, unless I'm reading the wrong files, I also looked through a lot for the word "lichen" and didn't find it. I can't believe the police wouldn't have mentioned something that obvious if it *was* that obvious? I appreciate candyfloss linking me to Professor Barclay's statement - however it mentions "green lichen" which brings to mind that stuff that grows quite densely on old concrete walls and I'm not aware I've seen any pictures that show this? Are there any tourist-taken pics or reports from people that have visited about this?

Also with the cleaner, the only statement I've seen doesn't explicitly mention windows - if you've found one that does, link me to it please as it'll be pretty handy for arguments!
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Activity : 167
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Daisy 19.02.12 21:43

C.Edwards wrote:
Well, unless I'm reading the wrong files, I also looked through a lot for the word "lichen" and didn't find it. I can't believe the police wouldn't have mentioned something that obvious if it *was* that obvious? I appreciate candyfloss linking me to Professor Barclay's statement - however it mentions "green lichen" which brings to mind that stuff that grows quite densely on old concrete walls and I'm not aware I've seen any pictures that show this? Are there any tourist-taken pics or reports from people that have visited about this?

Also with the cleaner, the only statement I've seen doesn't explicitly mention windows - if you've found one that does, link me to it please as it'll be pretty handy for arguments!

C.Edwards, Is it true you've done a Brenda Ryan/Bonny Braes? That you've changed your mind completely? Not that it really matters, it's your business of course, it would just be good to know where we stand.

Is this true? "He has joined Myths after a coutrageous stand against his own anti forum."

https://s9-us2.ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=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&epile=4q6n41784q6n41794q546o794q5638354p6q746p65513q3q&edata=40895312dcdb93303333087279981891

ps the link is so big because it's view by proxy, don't want them tracking IP addresses.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

― Friedrich Nietzsche
Daisy
Daisy

Posts : 1245
Activity : 1312
Likes received : 11
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by C.Edwards 19.02.12 21:51

Daisy wrote:

Is this true? "He has joined Myths after a coutrageous stand against his own anti forum."


ps the link is so big because it's view by proxy, don't want them tracking IP addresses.

Oh my... yes, I've joined "myths" but I did so primarily to flipping well point out to Jayelles the cock up she'd made in the analysis of me and my sister being the same person! In between me applying to join and getting approval, the "shutters can be raised" story broke and as I'd always been rudely aggressive about saying they couldn't be, it shocked me a fair bit and made me realise that I needed to be a fair bit more tolerant in looking at all possible scenarios. Thus far I'm debating things amicably and I have to say that the "myths" forum appears to be a bit less prone to going for the jugular than I've previously seen happen with other "antis on a pro forum". I am cynical enough to say I doubt the glasnost will last and I'm sure we'll be roundly abusing each other and I'll be messily banned at some point, but for now I'm actually questioning some of what seems to be accepted without question by those of us on this side of the fence - such as the lichen thing and the cleaner statements to name but two!

That post about me breaking ranks is a bit rich! I think that may have a little bit of mischief in it, to be honest. It appears to have had the author's desired effect, anyway!
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Activity : 167
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Daisy 19.02.12 21:56

Thanks for the prompt explanation.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

― Friedrich Nietzsche
Daisy
Daisy

Posts : 1245
Activity : 1312
Likes received : 11
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 22:34

Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
I have no idea about keys being reported missing. Odd that we don't know though as you would think it would be a key question that the PJ would ask, But nothing about it in the files that I recall. As I say, very odd.


Not really because there was absolutely nothing to support that theory. No evidence to support entry through the front door, no evidence to support an intruder being in the apartment.

Then of course that raises the question of why (if the team are to be believed) the abductor with a key would then mess around opening shutters and windows wouldn't it?

So if you think this is plausible then i presume you must be prepared to fully disregard and dismiss as false the idea of the window and shutter being opened from the outside?

So why would the Team claim the scene was set out with the Shutters and window open? Which is it? Either it's as the Team claim entry by shutter and window or by front door with a key.

It's one or the other but both together are not possible are they?

And don’t you find it odd that the Team left their children alone in an apartment that they claimed had an unlocked patio door, an unlocked front door and unlocked window?

Who would do that and shouldn’t that be investigated by the PJ?

wgbrother wrote:Any keys reported copied? Are you having a laugh? Do criminals report they have copied people's keys?


No think about it. Not the criminal reporting it you wally! With the media circus around the case let's suggest you ran a key cutting business in or around Pria De Luz and you were asked to copy a key or a series of latch and bolt keys by a man with an egg shaped face. Would you report this is a matter of interest? Would you report it afterwards when Jane's description started circulating?

Where did the master come from? Was it stolen? Who by, when and for what reason? Was it stolen before the McCann's came to Portugal or stolen after they arrived after they had been spotted, identified as being the occupants of 5A with children?



wgbrother wrote:Which team? PJ forensics team of one, the woman who did her work without gloves?


Now you're getting confused. The lady you mention fingerprinted the window shutter. She didn't perform the forensic tests inside the apartment. Here, once again, I’ve kindly provided you with another image taken on the 4th May 2007 to set you straight:

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Zz040510


wgbrother wrote:Probably an abductor walked that way because that was the direction he wanted to go in. Or maybe he was going to go down the road past OC and saw people around down there. As for location in PDL, I don't have any idea. But clearly the person the Smiths saw was heading somewhere wasn't he? It must have been a location in PDL I would have thought as carrying a child to the next town or further would be hard work.
I already said he was hiding.

Right so let’s look at this. In order for this theory to hold up we must pre-suppose that the abductor watched the Team and knew of their checking routine and the road they always walked up in order to do so. Correct?

Given the timings they must have known Gerry was in the apartment and left not 5 minutes before they snatched the child, and one must presume watched him leaving before they decided to strike. If you don’t agree with this then the absurdity levels reach new heights because then you’re suggesting a completely random snatch, on the correct apartment, at the correct time, using the correct window, which, halleluiah, just happened to be unlocked.

So having come to the conclusion that it must have been pre planned we are supposed to accept that the abductor decided to turn right out of the apartment carrying the child.

On this road he hears two men talking. Now common sense would dictate that there was a possibility having watched the apartment that he knew one of the men was Gerry.

Let’s say he didn’t, it’s a stretch but let’s just say that.

So we are to believe we have an abductor who decides to turn right and when he hears people talking on the very road he has to walk across he decides that, in full view, he will walk across it anyway.

If he was watching and knew it to be Gerry on the road (and the basis of your theory hinges upon them being watched) what abductor would walk across the same street the child’s father is talking on?

Why would he do that when if he went the other way he had the security of the complex wall to hide behind?

Also why did the GNR dogs follow the scent the OTHER way (i.e. left out if the car park)? Are those dogs also wrong?

Then we move onto the “hiding” nonsense. What evidence have you got to support this or are you simply making up facts to fit your theory?

Why would an abductor “hide”? for what purpose and where? If this was pre planned then surely there would have been provision to remove the child speedily. Given the nature of the road and the car park why walk with a child anyway, why not simply jump in a car and be off in seconds?

Why expose yourself to the danger of being seen by walking and hiding? If the abductor did walk, why hide and for what reason? What was he waiting for?

Think about it. The parents and friends were (allegedly) checking every 15 minutes. So we are supposed to believe that an abductor would hang around the area for some unknown reason for 30 minutes and run the risk of the child being discovered missing in at least two checks and the police being informed (he’s not to know the nature of the internal checks whether it be door listening or physical checking).

Where’s the logic there? Does any of this really sound plausible to you? Come on!



wgbrother wrote:I think Jane Tanner is absolutely certain she saw someone as thats what she said. As I've said elsewhere the details have not changed massively in her story.

Really? This has been covered before on this forum in detail by myself and others so I’m not going to regurgitate it all but suffice to say there has been a number of changes. However the most important issue regarding her description for me is why, if Jane Tanner is reliable, did she identify Robert Murat from the back of that van in the undercover operation and then subsequently recant?

You claim the area was dark, so how could she see the colour and the details of the pyjamas?

Evidence to support entry through a door with a key maybe? Yes there would be lots of that, not. And certainly none at all if nobody (like the PJ for example) bothered to look for any. You really don't think that the police force should investigate such basics as potential missing keys relating to an apartment where a child has gone missing. Pull the other one.

I have no idea why he messed with the shutters. Maybe he did it from inside because Gerry disturbed him? Maybe he looked in from outside.

I have no idea what any team is claiming. Both are possible and neither precludes the other. Maybe one abductor entered via the patio and there was an accomplice outside the window where it was less visible to the Tapas bar.

As for hiding. I am making nothing up. I am simply putting it forward as a perfectly logical explanation for the time period. Again if the PJ didn't bother to look then evidence is unlikely to be found.

The direction would fit in with an abductor using the patio doors for entry and exit and an accomplice receiving the body via the window. Neither were aware possibly that Gerry had remained outside and the accomplice was coming to the corner to meet the person exiting the flat.

If having hidden he crossed back over his path and went down the road to the supermarket it would explain the GNR dog route. Perhaps these people were local, perhaps they had a local apartment to use near the Smith sighing.

I am merely theorising based on the evidence before us.

ps my point about the forensics woman (fingerprinter) not wearing protection holds. No confusion from me at all. I never even thought about her going inside. Thats entirely your confusion.
avatar
wgbrother

Posts : 76
Activity : 76
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-02-18

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Me 19.02.12 22:55

wgbrother wrote:I think you are confusing two things here.
The judge was discussing Amaral's book which was a report of the case up till October 2007 when he was removed from the case.
The judge's claim referred to it in relation to its being a record of the case till then.

The AG report the following year is the final record relating to the full investigation. It does not concur with the interim report or with the even earlier Amaral account of the situation.

As for people lying. I am not actually sure there is any evidence at all of that. There are slightly varied accounts of things but that is to be expected when a large number of people are questioned regarding the same event and when the same people are questioned after considerable periods of time. I am sure any police officer would confirm that. Indeed if the accounts all matched and there were no variations or new details recalled over time then it would be very suspicious.

With the utmost respect it’s not me getting confused here on this issue.

You are wrong. The judges were not just discussing just Amaral’s thesis as a stand alone piece of work (which was also the PJ’s thesis upheld both by his successor Rebelo and in the interim report written by Tavares Almeida) but were comparing it, crucially and specifically, against the final archiving report itself.

Indeed the passage I quoted about interpretation of the facts was judged in comparison with the conclusions of the final archiving report.

The final report is a prosecutors (i.e. bureaucrats) interpretation of the facts gathered. It is not a judgment, because as I am sure you know, only a judge can deliver such a verdict.

The Judges in the Amaral case stated in specific reference to the final archiving reporting:

“Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he makes of those facts.”

The important element to consider here is that final archiving report is simply a different conclusion using the same facts which led Amaral, Rebelo and the magistrate Almeida to the exact opposite conclusion. No new evidence was presented in the final archiving report which wasn’t in Rebelo’s or Almeida’s report. It was simply a different spin on the same facts.

However despite that as I’m sure you know in the archiving report Menezes states:

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were made arguidos: their innocence regarding the fateful event. The investigation was also disturbed, because these facts remain to be clarified."

So despite this bureaucrat deciding there was insufficient evidence in an incomplete investigation to bring charges he does state that the McCann’s did not prove their innocence.

In relation to lying don’t take my word for it. Take the words of the judges in the same trial:

"What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."

However here’s a couple of my own for you:

Gerry McCann witness statement 10th May 2007:


At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key 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.

Kate McCann witness statement 4th May 2007:

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.

And another one for you:

Gerry McCann witness statement 10th May 2007:

Concerning the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared, he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when it was hot, with the bedclothes folded down.

Do these bedclothes look folded down to you?

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 A_well10



____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 23:38

Me, you've done heroically well. I have given up on this one, and its a case of if I don't laugh I'll cry, so:
Q: Why is it impossible to debate this case logically with a Pro?
A: Because their common sense just goes out of the window!


I know, I know, I should be on stage - trouble is, I'm scared people would laugh at me!... Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 670379



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
rainbow-fairy
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Me 19.02.12 23:49

wgbrother wrote:

Evidence to support entry through a door with a key maybe? Yes there would be lots of that, not. And certainly none at all if nobody (like the PJ for example) bothered to look for any. You really don't think that the police force should investigate such basics as potential missing keys relating to an apartment where a child has gone missing. Pull the other one.

Right so we’re now going with theories which have no evidence or basis of fact to them.

Right my turn. I think that little green men came down from outer space, teleported through the door and took Maddie to their spaceship.

There’s no evidence to support it but it could have happened, right?

How do you know the PJ didn’t look for missing keys?

wgbrother wrote:
I have no idea why he messed with the shutters. Maybe he did it from inside because Gerry disturbed him? Maybe he looked in from outside.

But we’re trying to develop a PLAUSIBLE theory here, aren’t we?

How can it be plausible to have a key to get in and then try and jemmy a noisy shutter open?

What would arouse less suspicion for an abductor? Entering quietly through the door or standing outside attempting to pull up a shutter and according to your earlier post, sticking a piece of wood under it to keep it open?

At what point did he raise it when inside and why? The shutter was closed when Gerry looked in, then according to Gerry (in his much later statements) he remembered he had a pee whilst there.

So the abductor was hiding in the wardrobe (snigger) when Gerry came in to the bedroom. Then Gerry decided to have a pee. So the abductor decided it would be most prudent and easier to escape by opening a window, lifting a metal (noise) shutter and clambering through an open window instead of simply walking up to and opening a silent door.

There is no logic to that.

wgbrother wrote:
I have no idea what any team is claiming. Both are possible and neither precludes the other. Maybe one abductor entered via the patio and there was an accomplice outside the window where it was less visible to the Tapas bar.

Well Team McCann claim the shutter was jemmied and the window open. There was no forensic evidence to support that claim.

Again I repeat there is no plausibility or logic to an abductor having a key to the front door then opening a window and shutter.

It’s either one or the other but not both. Because an abductor with a key would have no need to go through the window whereas as an abductor without a key would possibly need a window to get in through but not if we presume they were being watched because they would have known the patio was open.

Now we have two abductors. Right so where did this second mystery abductor go? He presumably went a different way to the other abductor because Janey only “saw” the one?

Why would he do that? Why did this second abductor not simply come to the open door and receive the child through the door that the first abductor came in through using his “key”?

wgbrother wrote:
As for hiding. I am making nothing up. I am simply putting it forward as a perfectly logical explanation for the time period. Again if the PJ didn't bother to look then evidence is unlikely to be found.

Not it’s not perfectly logical at all. It is precisely the opposite.

Any abductor who had watched the “checking routine” would know the frequency of the checks. Therefore hiding in the area is not logical when as far as the abductors were concerned, the parents would have known 15 minutes later, that Maddie had disappeared.

The overriding instinct of any abductor is to get as far away from the scene as quickly possible without arousing suspicion.

wgbrother wrote:
The direction would fit in with an abductor using the patio doors for entry and exit and an accomplice receiving the body via the window. Neither were aware possibly that Gerry had remained outside and the accomplice was coming to the corner to meet the person exiting the flat.

Right so now we’re saying he didn’t have a key, we’re back to the party line that entry was via the patio door? So is the key theory off the table now?

So now we’re saying that the abductor was in the apartment when Gerry was having a pee and checking then when Gerry left the intruder in the apartment couldn’t hear Gerry talking on the other side of the wall of the apartment?

Then a second intruder turned up from somewhere (but not across the road Gerry was talking on) and the child was to be passed out to him.

This second intruder who was presumably outside by the front door somewhere waiting for the child to be passed out to him couldn’t hear two men talking not 15 metres away in a quiet street?



wgbrother wrote:
If having hidden he crossed back over his path and went down the road to the supermarket it would explain the GNR dog route. Perhaps these people were local, perhaps they had a local apartment to use near the Smith sighing.

So wouldn’t the scent have been stronger going the way Jane claims she saw the man? After all there would have been two scent trails in that direction?

Perhaps they were local? Perhaps they had an apartment. There’s too much Alice in Wonderland here.

I’m getting the expression, if my aunty had bollocks she’d be my uncle.

wgbrother wrote:
I am merely theorising based on the evidence before us.

No you’re not. You are creating wholly illogical and implausible scenarios with no supporting evidence whatsoever to support them in a desperate attempt to fit a theory you cling on to that the parents must be innocent, despite having never met them or knowing anything about them.

You hold this theory and no matter what evidence is produced to the contrary you are not prepared to deviate from nor consider any other scenario when taking into account the evidence gathered before the case was archived. Remind me again why it was archived and who prevented the investigation from continuing and what conclusions we can draw from that decision?

Tell me do you believe the Team because you “feel it in your heart of hearts”?

wgbrother wrote:
ps my point about the forensics woman (fingerprinter) not wearing protection holds. No confusion from me at all. I never even thought about her going inside. That’s entirely your confusion.

I’m not confused. you were confusing the term Team McCann with forensics team so clearly you are not acquainted in the relevant terminology. You thought I meant the forensics team. You then claimed there was a forensic team of one and said:

Which team? PJ forensics team of one, the woman who did her work without gloves?

I then corrected you by pointing out the lady you mentioned was not the only forensic person there .

And as a result of her working without gloves did they find her fingerprints on the scene? Er no.

And would her not wearing gloves make ooh I don’t know Gerry’s and Diane’s fingerprints magically disappear off the shutters?

Because both Gerry & Diane claimed that (and others claimed they saw them) they lifted the shutters from the outside.

Why if that is true (and not a lie) were no fingerprints found matching Gerry & Diane on the shutter? Because the forensics lady wasn’t wearing gloves? Ok explain that one to me then.

I think you’re getting confused because you should only be claiming contamination when to do so strengthens your argument not weakens it.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Ribisl 19.02.12 23:50

03/05/2007
GM says Madeleine slept on top of the covers because it was hot.
KM says it was a chilly night.

One of many inconsistencies. Maybe we should list their statements that directly contradict with one another. Surely not all of them can be explained away by muddled brains telling their version of the truth. Now who was it that said 'The greater the lie, the greater the chance that it will be believed.' spit coffee

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
avatar
Ribisl

Posts : 807
Activity : 858
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-04

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Ribisl 20.02.12 0:01

rainbow-fairy wrote:Me, you've done heroically well. I have given up on this one, and its a case of if I don't laugh I'll cry, so:
Q: Why is it impossible to debate this case logically with a Pro?
A: Because their common sense just goes out of the window!


I know, I know, I should be on stage - trouble is, I'm scared people would laugh at me!... Wink

Promise we won't laugh sarcastic
Yes, well done Me. Keep at it while we get some beauty sleep coffee

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
avatar
Ribisl

Posts : 807
Activity : 858
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-04

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 20.02.12 0:38

D'aagh! You beat me to it, Me! Great minds and all that...
Me wrote:Right so we’re now going with theories which have no evidence or basis of fact to them
Right my turn. I think that little green men came down from outer space, teleported through the door and took Maddie to their spaceship.
There’s no evidence to support it but it could have happened, right?
I was going to say that miniature purple unicorns got in through the letterbox and carried Maddie away to be their fairy Queen, sensing that 'special quality' Jon Corner loved to comment on.
No evidence to back it, but hey there's none to dismiss it so it could've happened, right?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 670379



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
rainbow-fairy
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo 20.02.12 4:53

Gillyspot wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
worriedmum wrote:I think Pat Brown is presenting evidence as she finds it, even if this means adjusting theories she had BEFORE she went to PDL. To me this is evidence of her professionalism and desire to get to the truth. I wouldn't describe this as 'hysterical or clutching at straws' myself.
BTW I'm trying to get to grips with the idea of an abductor who carries ready cut pieces of wood but then carries a little girl away, uncovered , in full view of Jane Tanner.

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 110921 The same abductor who hid behind a door, or in the bathroom (Gerry didn't see him in there though when he popped in to relieve himself) had a duplicate key, popped into the Tapas to check the bookings page where he saw a note advertising the neglect of small children, who had long hair, short hair, spots, moustache, goofy teeth, no facial features, looked like Murat or possibly a woman and who Smith thought was Gerry! These shape-shifters have no problems concealing a length of timber about their person whilst skulking about it dimly lit/well lit public places. With or without shrubbery for cover.

if he'd entered by the window and hiding behind the door when Gerry came into check on the children, why didn't Gerry notice the opened window or shutter? Don't forget it was a windy night.

Not sure that it was a windy night as such. Where does it say that?
And could he not simply have pulled the window to or slid it back across?
You are simply speculating that the window was left open.

Hmm...more like you are the one speculating here!

The window left wide open and the door slam shut is from the horse's mouth (kate) in her reconstruction.
She even used her hands to demonstrate her points... ...watch it if you dont believe me!
If you haven't done your homework don't accuse people of speculating or you are making yourself SO obvious..

She said it was a chilly night and she felt the chill while on her way back to the apt.
When she got there she noticed the door was more ajar - not in the same position as they'd left it (though how she knows how Gerry who did the checking before her had left it is a mystery). Then just as she approached to reach for the door the door suddenly slam shut.
She re-opened it and peeped in the dark without switching on the light to avoid disturbing the children hence in the darkness couldnt quite make out whether Maddie was on her bed or not. When she looked again, and realised Maddie wasn't there she had a quick look round the apartment (still without switching on the lights anywhere else - not in the kitchen not the other bedroom either) then she tore down the stairs to the Tapas Bar screaming she was taken.

People have questioned how she could have missed the open window when she looked in because she didnt mention it ( her story about the open window came later). Since she said it was cold and windy night, shouldn't there be pressure on the door when she reopened it because she is opening against the wind direction (slam shut door remember from open window); the room should have been illuminated from moonlight because it was full moon on May3rd, she should have felt the wind and a chill in the room in the open window situation, but kate did not notice any of those, else how would you explain her not stepping into the room to make sure the twins were OK. In fact, she not mention the twins at all, as if the twins weren't in the room,.



But chilly night does not equate to windy night.
Nor does one reported gust of wind equate to windy night.

She did not say it was a cold and windy night.
She said it was chilly and there was a single gust or draught.

Oh , right! so kate who felt the chill on the way to the apt, didnt not feel the chill coming from the bedroom when she found the window wide opened, the shutter opened, and the curtains whooshed aside. Err...strange NO?

Either the wind was a constant continual circulation or it wasn't. It's only you who interpret her "gust" of wind as a "single" gust.
Well, in that case a "single" gust cant be right either is it?
The wind slam shut the door -so that must be one "single" gust - agreed?
Then kate re-opened the door and saw the curtain whooshing about - so that must be another "single" gust - right?
So which is it? Windy or gust in multiple units?

If it is not windy, how convenient that the "single" gust just happened to occur when kate arrived back the apt slamming shut the door just as she was about to look into the bedroom, then another "single" gust just happened to occur timed perfectly at the time kate re-opened the door just in time to see the curtains whooshing?
It's more plausible that kate's "gust" of wind remark means it was windy and not that the wind was in units of "gust".

I think you are twisting it to fit your theory . You said kate didn't say it was cold and windy. Well, that is not correct - kate did say she felt the draught hence cold during her walk back to 5A. What you are trying to imply is that the "chill" or "cold" wasn't because it was windy.
Well, in that case, the "single" gust happening just timed perfectly to fit into Kate's agenda is a tad too far stretch.

More pertinently, if the window, shutter and curtain were opened why didn't kate feel the wind or the chill in the room?
If she did, why didn't she venture into the room to check properly before jumping to conclusion Maddie wasn't in her bed - this knowledge, we were told from her documentary, she glimpsed from having peeped from the doorway into the room in the dark since she didn't want to turn on the light because the children were sleeping.

In the circumstances of the window, shutter, and curtain wide opened, yet she didn't feel the wind, the chill, and didn't go inside and check on the twins before coming to conclusion only Maddie was taken speaks louder than volume.
The open window could only mean the wind was blowing in her direction yet she didn't notice this until belatedly?
Also when she pushed open the door against the wind, there would be a resist pressure due to the wind, why didn't she feel the it?

She neither feel the pressure against the door, nor the wind coming from window direction, nor feel the chill, at the time of occurence, yet she was able to relate all of these much later as an after-thought realization, how very odd.

If she did feel all those then it begs the question why didn't she investigate the window straight away and why didn't she make sure the twins were safe before jumping to conclusion only Maddie was taken.



Incidentally just because it was a full moon or close to a full moon on that night does not mean that there was not cloud cover which would have meant that the light would have been much reduced. Nor does it in fact mean that the moon was at its highest and therefore brightest at 10pm.

Mccanns' ground floor apt is not in total darkness anyway being at street lamps level. On top of that, posters who reside in PDL area reported that May3rd was full moon, bright and shiny (not clouded over) and the entire place was a lot brighter. So kate's account of total darkness in the children's room that she couldn't at first make out whether Maddie form was in bed or not is total bollock - the opened window in full moon would have rendered the room far from total darkness - in fact to the contrary.

Few questions. If this was a chilly but not necesarrily "windy" night why did the curtains go "whoosh" & the door slam as according to Kate Mccann in the documentary. Why does it matter also if the shutters are able to be lifted at all if the abductor had a duplicate key as he would have chosen to use that rather than the more difficult way of looking through the shutters and hoping that the window was not locked. BTW I have lived in houses where the windows aren't locked but they would be virtually impossible to open from the outside without damaging them. I am sure you can explain all these things though.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo 20.02.12 5:08

Me wrote:
In relation to lying don’t take my word for it. Take the words of the judges in the same trial:

"What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."


big grin Oh dear, the use of the taboo to mccanns "M" word by the judges! Why haven't the mccanns sue the judges?

Ha,....that prohibition applies specifically only to TB - they only target him evidently.

p.s. I hope Isabel Hudson take note of that.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 20.02.12 8:16

The Draft and Slamming Doors

This is impossible the way Kate describes it. I've tested it many times and it always happens (something to do with the laws of physics, I believe)
IF:
The Window Was Open ('whooshing' curtains)
The Bedroom Door was Open (Kate says)
Kate Enters Through Patio Doors (she says...)

In the above example, what would happen?

A: the instant Kate opens the patio doors, the bedroom door will slam. Not seconds later and certainly not after she'd come in and shut the patio doors! (She did say she checked if she'd left them open at all, but she hadn't.)

So, Kate's claim that the door slammed as she was about to touch it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
I've tried this numerous times, always same result, no great wind speed needed, or 'gusts' - it is, or so I'm told, the 'pressure change' that causes the slam.
Anything else is just flim-flam hogwash.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 670379



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
rainbow-fairy
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by C.Edwards 20.02.12 8:59

rainbow-fairy wrote:The Draft and Slamming Doors

This is impossible the way Kate describes it. I've tested it many times and it always happens (something to do with the laws of physics, I believe)
IF:
The Window Was Open ('whooshing' curtains)
The Bedroom Door was Open (Kate says)
Kate Enters Through Patio Doors (she says...)

In the above example, what would happen?

A: the instant Kate opens the patio doors, the bedroom door will slam. Not seconds later and certainly not after she'd come in and shut the patio doors! (She did say she checked if she'd left them open at all, but she hadn't.)

So, Kate's claim that the door slammed as she was about to touch it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
I've tried this numerous times, always same result, no great wind speed needed, or 'gusts' - it is, or so I'm told, the 'pressure change' that causes the slam.
Anything else is just flim-flam hogwash.

I agree that it's most likely that the door would slam the moment the patio door is opened, but the problem with any subjective testing of "this always does X when I do Y" is that we don't know for certain what the situation was in the McCann apartment. No court of law in the world would be interested in a theory whereby something "must" have happened in that apartment because tests in your house however many hundred or thousands of miles away do a particular thing. With the door, for example, maybe something was stopping it banging immediately - a piece of clothing that gradually got pushed out of the way until it suddenly was clear of the door and "bang!" several seconds later. I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it's possible. If it' possible, however improbable, it has to be considered, surely? Equally with the shutters - I see that several pros are going on about how the shots of the rebelo investigation show the shutter slightly skewed and this is enough to hold them up - I don't know if that's true or not, as I'm nowhere near shutters of that kind to try it out! It's plausible to my mind and, bear in mind, the 5a front bedroom shutters *might* be the only shutters in the world where this wedging can be done, but if they can be wedged like that, then it remains a possibility that this *could* have happened.

It's very frustrating that all these tests (as far as I know) weren't done at the time. Maybe they were and we just don't know about them.
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Activity : 167
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 20.02.12 9:18

C.Edwards wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:The Draft and Slamming Doors

This is impossible the way Kate describes it. I've tested it many times and it always happens (something to do with the laws of physics, I believe)
IF:
The Window Was Open ('whooshing' curtains)
The Bedroom Door was Open (Kate says)
Kate Enters Through Patio Doors (she says...)

In the above example, what would happen?

A: the instant Kate opens the patio doors, the bedroom door will slam. Not seconds later and certainly not after she'd come in and shut the patio doors! (She did say she checked if she'd left them open at all, but she hadn't.)

So, Kate's claim that the door slammed as she was about to touch it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
I've tried this numerous times, always same result, no great wind speed needed, or 'gusts' - it is, or so I'm told, the 'pressure change' that causes the slam.
Anything else is just flim-flam hogwash.

I agree that it's most likely that the door would slam the moment the patio door is opened, but the problem with any subjective testing of "this always does X when I do Y" is that we don't know for certain what the situation was in the McCann apartment. No court of law in the world would be interested in a theory whereby something "must" have happened in that apartment because tests in your house however many hundred or thousands of miles away do a particular thing. With the door, for example, maybe something was stopping it banging immediately - a piece of clothing that gradually got pushed out of the way until it suddenly was clear of the door and "bang!" several seconds later. I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it's possible. If it' possible, however improbable, it has to be considered, surely? Equally with the shutters - I see that several pros are going on about how the shots of the rebelo investigation show the shutter slightly skewed and this is enough to hold them up - I don't know if that's true or not, as I'm nowhere near shutters of that kind to try it out! It's plausible to my mind and, bear in mind, the 5a front bedroom shutters *might* be the only shutters in the world where this wedging can be done, but if they can be wedged like that, then it remains a possibility that this *could* have happened.

It's very frustrating that all these tests (as far as I know) weren't done at the time. Maybe they were and we just don't know about them.
Yes, maybe they were. Remember not ALL the files have been released - only 80% - the Portuguese have the most damning evidence still (that which Team McCann are desperate to get their hands on).

Now. You say, whilst admitting I am correct in stating the door wouldve slammed immediately, then say 'but we don't kniw the conditions of the apartment'
I based the experiment on, and DISPROVED Kate's own description of how she found the apartment (you're not suggesting she's lying, are you? tut, tut!) Here it is again:
IF:
The Window Was Open ('whooshing' curtains)
The Bedroom Door was Open (Kate says)
Kate Enters Through Patio Doors (she says...)

In the above example, what would happen?

A: the instant Kate opens the patio doors, the bedroom door will slam. Not seconds later and certainly not after she'd come in and shut the patio doors! (She did say she checked if she'd left them open at all, but she hadn't.)

It really is irrelevant mentioning what happens in my house, your house, Buckingham Palace - in the above situation, the door WILL SLAM the INSTANT the patio doors are opened. As It does in my house, and would in yours, if you have an open door, open window then open another one.
Considering members of T9 had been in and checked the room and children, its extremely unlikely that there was an item of clothing, or anything, for that matter, blocking the door's progress.
To say there is a slim possibility, where do we draw the line? There is a very slim chance Maddie spontaneously combusted somewhere but its not likely is it? Nor does the evidence bear it out.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 670379



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
rainbow-fairy
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo 20.02.12 9:41

In kate's documentary there was nothing wedged between the door. She demonstrated how the door slam shut and the whooshing curtain that caught her attention.

Maybe someone will be kind enough to post up that documentary if they can find it, just for discussion sake.
I tried googling yesterday but couldn't find it.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by finch 20.02.12 9:54

Is it this one you're looking for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

avatar
finch

Posts : 29
Activity : 29
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-11-11
Location : Belgium Antwerp

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by C.Edwards 20.02.12 10:26

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Now. You say, whilst admitting I am correct in stating the door wouldve slammed immediately, then say 'but we don't kniw the conditions of the apartment'
I based the experiment on, and DISPROVED Kate's own description of how she found the apartment (you're not suggesting she's lying, are you? tut, tut!) Here it is again:
IF:
The Window Was Open ('whooshing' curtains)
The Bedroom Door was Open (Kate says)
Kate Enters Through Patio Doors (she says...)

In the above example, what would happen?

A: the instant Kate opens the patio doors, the bedroom door will slam. Not seconds later and certainly not after she'd come in and shut the patio doors! (She did say she checked if she'd left them open at all, but she hadn't.)

It really is irrelevant mentioning what happens in my house, your house, Buckingham Palace - in the above situation, the door WILL SLAM the INSTANT the patio doors are opened. As It does in my house, and would in yours, if you have an open door, open window then open another one.
Considering members of T9 had been in and checked the room and children, its extremely unlikely that there was an item of clothing, or anything, for that matter, blocking the door's progress.
To say there is a slim possibility, where do we draw the line? There is a very slim chance Maddie spontaneously combusted somewhere but its not likely is it? Nor does the evidence bear it out.

OK, you have a point about how Kate described the situation when she found it, but if only there had been some tests done at the time, this would have been known! That's the point I'm trying to make. We can argue until the cows come home about how this or that *must* have happened but you're still basing your opinion on what has happened in your house. You may well be right and I know that our kitchen door slams if we open the front door when the back door is open. I don't know for certain if this happens in apartment 5a though.

I also don't like the "Yes, maybe they were. Remember not ALL the files have been released - only 80% - the Portuguese have the most damning evidence still (that which Team McCann are desperate to get their hands on). " quote as I've not seen anything official which indicates that there is "damning evidence" held back. I thought the stuff held back was where anonymity had been guaranteed or it would reveal witness addresses? If that evidence contains damning stuff, it's not going to see the light of day (well, in it's current form with names and addresses anyway). Equally if there had been damning evidence in there, then it must have been seen by the AG who still shelved the investigation?

I'm trying to be a bit more objective about things at present and questioning both sides about what appears to be accepted without necessarily having proof!
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Activity : 167
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by joyce1938 20.02.12 11:08

hallo all i dont do a lot of posting ,but i have been reading all of this shutter talk. I have a memory about a piece of filming of 2 men from england who i think had been in police or detectives maybe retired . they were checking the blinds if said window,and their impression was both egreed that the blinds only showed that was it a print or marks which could only have resulted by being from insideand opening said blinds. Maybe this mey stir another persons memory ,it was happening soon after the event .sincerely meant joyce1938
joyce1938
joyce1938

Posts : 890
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 124
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 85
Location : england

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by ShuBob 20.02.12 11:08

C.Edwards, I think the point being made is that the sequence of events couldn't have happened the way Kate described it. I wholeheartedly agree with that!
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by C.Edwards 20.02.12 11:17

ShuBob wrote:C.Edwards, I think the point being made is that the sequence of events couldn't have happened the way Kate described it. I wholeheartedly agree with that!

If we're talking specifically about the banging door, then I respectfully disagree, as I am trying to do on a more "pro" forum about some of the other pro-biased "accepted" information that doesn't have solid proof. I agree that Kate's scenario may be unlikely but you cannot say, as far as I know, that it "couldn't" have happened that way.

In attempting to argue a point with Jayelles recently, I discovered that there are several notable discrepancies in timings, location of meeting and whether there were, indeed, any meetings at all between the Paynes/Dianne Webster and Matt Oldfield. Dianne Webster categorically stated twice in her statements that her & the Paynes did not meet anyone on the way to the Tapas bar that night and yet by the time of the rogatory interviews she states that in fact she does now recall that she met up with Matt. It's not impossible that she should remember this a year later (if it was remembered earlier, surely she could have notified the police in some way?) but I find it unlikely.
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Activity : 167
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 20.02.12 12:33

C.Edwards wrote:
ShuBob wrote:C.Edwards, I think the point being made is that the sequence of events couldn't have happened the way Kate described it. I wholeheartedly agree with that!

If we're talking specifically about the banging door, then I respectfully disagree, as I am trying to do on a more "pro" forum about some of the other pro-biased "accepted" information that doesn't have solid proof. I agree that Kate's scenario may be unlikely but you cannot say, as far as I know, that it "couldn't" have happened that way.

In attempting to argue a point with Jayelles recently, I discovered that there are several notable discrepancies in timings, location of meeting and whether there were, indeed, any meetings at all between the Paynes/Dianne Webster and Matt Oldfield. Dianne Webster categorically stated twice in her statements that her & the Paynes did not meet anyone on the way to the Tapas bar that night and yet by the time of the rogatory interviews she states that in fact she does now recall that she met up with Matt. It's not impossible that she should remember this a year later (if it was remembered earlier, surely she could have notified the police in some way?) but I find it unlikely.
Thank you to Shubob for the back-up.
C.Edwards, are you now attempting to re-write the laws of physics or nature? You've admitted that the same 'slam' happens in your house as in mine. Why do you believe 5A to be any different? Its not a vacuum, a separate universe with its own physical laws!
I am disputing Kate's version. Again, slowly this time...
1)Window - open
2)Bedroom door - open
3)She opens patio door, shuts it. Several seconds later, on reaching said door, it slams.

This can NOT happen. Not in my house, not in yours, not in 5A. Its not disputable.
However, IF the apartment was not as described, that's a different kettle of fish. That is NOT what I'm disputing, and you know it. I'm not sure why you're being so obstructive when you've already conceded you know this happens?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 670379



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
rainbow-fairy
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by C.Edwards 20.02.12 14:46

rainbow-fairy wrote:
C.Edwards, are you now attempting to re-write the laws of physics or nature? You've admitted that the same 'slam' happens in your house as in mine. Why do you believe 5A to be any different? Its not a vacuum, a separate universe with its own physical laws!
I am disputing Kate's version. Again, slowly this time...
1)Window - open
2)Bedroom door - open
3)She opens patio door, shuts it. Several seconds later, on reaching said door, it slams.

This can NOT happen. Not in my house, not in yours, not in 5A. Its not disputable.
However, IF the apartment was not as described, that's a different kettle of fish. That is NOT what I'm disputing, and you know it. I'm not sure why you're being so obstructive when you've already conceded you know this happens?

Calm down Rainbow-Fairy! I'm just trying to be balanced. I say again, just because something happens in my house, your house or any other house we care to mention means nothing "evidentially" unless it can be shown to happen in 5a. If the police had done (they may have done, informally for all I know) a test with open and closed window and watched what happened, then that is the real test. This is the same reason I'd have like Pat Brown to have tried, with those exact shutters, to see if they could be wedged open as shown in the rebelo photo when they're at an angle. I don't think, as we've seen from the video, that it's possible to push them up that high and then angle them to the extent they can be wedged, but just to rule it out entirely because other shutters may not work the same way is faulty logic.

How do we know that the children's room door wasn't a little stiff? Maybe it took longer to shut because of this? It almost certainly didn't happen the way Kate puts it, but no-one can say if "definitely" didn't happen that way unless they tested that exact door. That's all I'm trying to say and I'm not being obstructive!
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Activity : 167
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 8 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo 20.02.12 15:30

finch wrote:Is it this one you're looking for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw


That's it - thanks finch.

Come to think of it, what sort of a mother neglects to enter the room to check on her sleeping children to see that the slam door didn't frighten or wake them up? People are left in no doubt her mockumentary takes the piss.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum