Pat Brown - What about the Window

Cheshire Cat wrote:

No, a reconstruction, to jog memories is what is needed and SY should have made that their priority.

Daisy wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:

No, a reconstruction, to jog memories is what is needed and SY should have made that their priority.

A photofit of the suspect witnessed by the Smith party should have been taken & circulated. I don't understand why one was never done? Surely it would have been more helpful than some of the ridiculous witness photofits they have released.

russiandoll wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:From the Algarve 123 article -
"So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

I'm afraid to say I think Pat's 'burden of proof' is ridiculously low. I don't see how proving Gerry was at the table proves an abduction? Seems to me she has made a couple of fatal assumptions;
1)The Smith sighting is genuine,
2)Correct that it was Gerry
3)The carried child was Madeleine

If all points above were 100% verified, then yes, I'd agree with her but how could you possibly verify them?
What does 'Gerry at dinner Table' prove?
A: Nothing! Maddie could've been moved by any of the other Tapas, person unknown to us but not the T9, or maybe (and most likely, IMO) Maddie was already in another location by the night of the 3rd!
I've done my best to explain my thinking here but I've only just woken up, so if I've made a big muck-up please put me right!
I admire Pat, greatly, but tbh if these are her conclusions then I'm very disappointed...

no muck up , my dear. I think exactly the same.
Disappointing indeed , can only hope that the full context of this is made clear and there is some additional info to add to these assumptions, because as you say, a v low burden of proof and makes me think perhaps not reported in full the way it was initially by PB. She is usually incisive, she herself would have made the comments you did after reading that piece, it is exactly the kind of thing she would have dimsantled with logic.

russiandoll wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:From the Algarve 123 article -
"So what’s the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? “If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55” (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) “then that would be proof that there was an abduction”.

I'm afraid to say I think Pat's 'burden of proof' is ridiculously low. I don't see how proving Gerry was at the table proves an abduction? Seems to me she has made a couple of fatal assumptions;
1)The Smith sighting is genuine,
2)Correct that it was Gerry
3)The carried child was Madeleine

If all points above were 100% verified, then yes, I'd agree with her but how could you possibly verify them?
What does 'Gerry at dinner Table' prove?
A: Nothing! Maddie could've been moved by any of the other Tapas, person unknown to us but not the T9, or maybe (and most likely, IMO) Maddie was already in another location by the night of the 3rd!
I've done my best to explain my thinking here but I've only just woken up, so if I've made a big muck-up please put me right!
I admire Pat, greatly, but tbh if these are her conclusions then I'm very disappointed...

no muck up , my dear. I think exactly the same.
Disappointing indeed , can only hope that the full context of this is made clear and there is some additional info to add to these assumptions, because as you say, a v low burden of proof and makes me think perhaps not reported in full the way it was initially by PB. She is usually incisive, she herself would have made the comments you did after reading that piece, it is exactly the kind of thing she would have dimsantled with logic.

Cheshire Cat wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:From that, I would say it appears Pat Brown gives credibility to Smith's sighted man as "Gerry".

Would the Smith family, if subjected to re-interview, stick to their conviction? If not, where does that leave Pat Brown's theory?

For example, if proven Gerry was neither at the table nor positively identified as Smith's "man" ...what then?

No abduction and mccanns not involved...?

Pat Brown does indeed give credibility to the Smiths sighted man as "Gerry". Which I think is a good thing because Mr Smith appears to be a very credible witness.

Err....I think that is very subjective. On what basis do you say Smith is a credible witness.
No one knows whether the Police had in fact eliminated the man.
After Amaral was taken off the case, we dont know what he successor were looking at in terms of evidence.
Since they didn't deem it necessary to summon Smith or even have him included in the UK Rog interview it may be that investigators post Amaral might not have given enough credence to Smith sighting in the same manner Amaral did.
It all depends on what evidence had developed post Amaral.





Amaral and Pat say it is a reconstruction that will provide the evidence, Mr Smith provides useful information.

A reconstruction is always useful. Without having access to unreleased portion of the data who is to say Pat's analysis which incidentally and coincidentally allies with Amaral's view giving credence to Smith sighting,is not perhaps a tad shortsighted. What Pat has demonstrated is that Smith needs to be re-interviewed and Gerry's movement needs to be ascertained by reconstruction. However even if Smith's man is proven not to be Gerry, it does nothing to prove there is abduction nor that Gerry wasn't involved.
All depends what other evidence the investigators unearthed and was held back.

Say Mr Smith is further interviewed, almost five years after the event, one would expect less detail in his account about what he saw and how he felt. Even in 2007 Mr Smith could not state with 100% confidence that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.

He spoke of the similarities and the alarm he felt when he saw Gerry on the runway with child in his arms. What would further interviews achieve now? No, a reconstruction, to jog memories is what is needed and SY should have made that their priority.

uppatoffee wrote:Here you go Nina http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

russiandoll wrote:Please be patient and don't shout, I am suffering with heat and humidity. Going back to the very basics......in the early days of jemmied shutters, why would they need to be forced if they could be opened from inside? The window could only be used as a means of exit, couldn't it. so Mr Abductor would already be in the bedroom meaning to leave via the window.....both shutters and window to be opened from inside, naturally.
 If he managed to open shutters from outside, he would be faced with a closed window. How would he have got in? I would be shocked to learn that as well as a means of holding on to a handle and opening from inside, there was a way to open the window from the outside. I have never seen a window designed like this, has anyone else?
 So the shutters would have been forced for nothing. Did anyone ever claim the window was a point of entry?  I read a lot about it being the exit point.

  I did see photos of police climbing in, but assumed that was an exercise designed to ascertain ease of movement, height from ground level, ease of fit for average size male when window open.
 Sorry if this is a waste of time, it just seems to me not secure to have a window with a means of opening from the exterior, especially at ground level.

Finn wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Please be patient and don't shout, I am suffering with heat and humidity. Going back to the very basics......in the early days of jemmied shutters, why would they need to be forced if they could be opened from inside? The window could only be used as a means of exit, couldn't it. so Mr Abductor would already be in the bedroom meaning to leave via the window.....both shutters and window to be opened from inside, naturally.
 If he managed to open shutters from outside, he would be faced with a closed window. How would he have got in? I would be shocked to learn that as well as a means of holding on to a handle and opening from inside, there was a way to open the window from the outside. I have never seen a window designed like this, has anyone else?
 So the shutters would have been forced for nothing. Did anyone ever claim the window was a point of entry?  I read a lot about it being the exit point.

  I did see photos of police climbing in, but assumed that was an exercise designed to ascertain ease of movement, height from ground level, ease of fit for average size male when window open.
 Sorry if this is a waste of time, it just seems to me not secure to have a window with a means of opening from the exterior, especially at ground level.[/
In Gerry's statement on 10th May he states that because they were sure the blinds couldn't be opened from the outside they never checked if the windows were locked. But what I don't get is he says it's unlikely the front door was locked. If his daughter was abducted one would think the front door is the first thing they'd have checked. If it was unlocked then anyone could leave the house from the inside without a key including Madeleine but nobody could have gained access.

They couldn't have gone in via window as GM had just checked and all ok and he hadn't moved from outside the gate until after JT had seen the abductor, he would have heard the shutters being jemmied

For that same reason they couldn't have exited via the shutters as not enough time and the statement that they had been jemmied by an abductor was a total lie

russiandoll wrote:thank you Finn. So if shutters down no access to window.
   If shutters up and you are outside, if the bedroom window is closed but not locked, you can simply get some kind of purchase on the frame and slide the window open. Should have been obvious, sorry, am daft with the weather !