Re: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

by Guest 15.02.12 14:29

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 View%2Bof%2BApartment%2B5A%2Bfrom%2BBalcony

The apartment where Pat was, may have been at the wrong angle for 5a windows and door. From this angle, she was pretty much square on. But maybe someone else right up the other end of block 2, had a better view through the opening in the carpark entrance. Whether they could see the front door though, which be round the slight bend, I doubt it. But someone may have been able to see the bedroom window through the gap.

by **Nina** 15.02.12 14:30

[quote="ShuBob"]Pat B has now updated her initial blog entry which led to TREEGATE. It would appear Stella deserves an apology from certain posters.

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-picture.html[/quote]

Hi ShuBob, as I was asking questions about trees then I am maybe one of these you refer to.

Stella I apologise if you thought that I was trying to discredit you, I certainly wasn't.

Thank you Nina, Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 725573

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 725573

your comment was out of interest, not malice, I know that. Stella.

by C.Edwards 15.02.12 14:33

Stella wrote:
ShuBob wrote:The branches and leaves of trees move. Bear that in mind when deciding on visibility.

I agree Shubob and those willow like ones were so beautiful, it added to the beauty of that area. But now, it looks like a tornado has run past there and is more like a disaster zone.

The point Pat was trying to make I think, before we entered into Treegate was that any exit through the front came with a very high level of risk. So why would anyone take that, when they had a very low risk out the back. It's true, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

According to the pros, logically he wouldn't have come out of the back as that took him very near to Gerry & Jez talking in the pathway. The fact that they seem to accept that this uber-cautious abductor then chooses to walk pretty close to them anyway to allow the JT "sighting" seems to be escaping their irony detectors.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 YsbWr

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 YsbWr

Looking at this google earth shot, there is only a very small window for being overlooked at the front with those trees positioned in the way they are in relation to 5a. Those are mature trees and would form a pretty significant barrier I'd have thought. The chances of the few possible overlookers just happening to be looking out of the right window at the right time would have been vanishingly small.

by Guest 15.02.12 14:42

C.Edwards wrote:According to the pros, logically he wouldn't have come out of the back as that took him very near to Gerry & Jez talking in the pathway. The fact that they seem to accept that this uber-cautious abductor then chooses to walk pretty close to them anyway to allow the JT "sighting" seems to be escaping their irony detectors.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 145161

They never could make their minds up in a logical fashion.

by annabel 15.02.12 14:45

About the streetlightning (from PAMALAM)

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STREET_LIGHTING.htm

Also some pictures here:

http://sojo-adventures.tripod.com/id8.html

by Guest 15.02.12 14:46

Stella wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:According to the pros, logically he wouldn't have come out of the back as that took him very near to Gerry & Jez talking in the pathway. The fact that they seem to accept that this uber-cautious abductor then chooses to walk pretty close to them anyway to allow the JT "sighting" seems to be escaping their irony detectors.

They never could make their minds up in a logical fashion.

Let's face it a pretty dumb abductor, who has a car park conveniently next to the front door, could just quickly put the child in the car and be away, but instead chooses to go for a nice stroll where he could be seen by anyone.

by Guest 15.02.12 14:48

annabel wrote:About the streetlightning (from PAMALAM)

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STREET_LIGHTING.htm

Also some pictures here:

[url=http://sojo-adventures.tripod.com/id8.html

http://sojo-adventures.tripod.com/id8.html[/quote[/url]]

Thanks annabel. I noticed Jeanne d'Arc also talks about the heads on the lamposts changing shape. I believe she also said it was in Goncalo Amaral's book, I've not had time to look there yet to see what he said.

by ShuBob 15.02.12 14:49

"The chances of the few possible overlookers just happening to be looking out of the right window at the right time would have been vanishingly small."

A chance nonetheless which cannot be overlooked!

by Guest 15.02.12 14:53

candyfloss wrote:
Stella wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:According to the pros, logically he wouldn't have come out of the back as that took him very near to Gerry & Jez talking in the pathway. The fact that they seem to accept that this uber-cautious abductor then chooses to walk pretty close to them anyway to allow the JT "sighting" seems to be escaping their irony detectors.

They never could make their minds up in a logical fashion.

Let's face it a pretty dumb abductor, who has a car park conveniently next to the front door, could just quickly put the child in the car and be away, but instead chooses to go for a nice stroll where he could be seen by anyone.

I'll never get that one either Candyfloss. That's what anyone with half a brain would do. Or, failing that, go out the back, over the wall into the garden of 5b and out through their gate, turn right and up the dark alley to a waiting car at the other end.

by aiyoyo 15.02.12 15:32

Oh, are we talking about a stupid abductor who took his time to stroll through a lane in open view to human traffic, that of JT, but clever enough not to leave any forensics at all?

So which is it? Is he stupid or clever? can't have it both ways surely?

by Guest 15.02.12 15:46

Nice one.

by jd 15.02.12 15:50

aiyoyo wrote:Oh, are we talking about a stupid abductor who took his time to stroll through a lane in open view to human traffic, that of JT, but clever enough not to leave any forensics at all?

So which is it? Is he stupid or clever? can't have it both ways surely?

Do you mean this abductor? lol!

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 11

by Guest 15.02.12 15:59

Old bulbs.

by Guest 15.02.12 16:00

New bulbs

by aiyoyo 15.02.12 16:16

Oh, BTW, we have got a human-head matching the old bulb in the first pic, can some clever clog come up with a human-head/face matching the new bulb please? It will complete the picture.

by Guest 15.02.12 16:18

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 5251

You're on fire today aiyoyo.

by womandotcom 15.02.12 16:21

jd wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Oh, are we talking about a stupid abductor who took his time to stroll through a lane in open view to human traffic, that of JT, but clever enough not to leave any forensics at all?

So which is it? Is he stupid or clever? can't have it both ways surely?

Do you mean this abductor?

he looks pretty stupid to me jd Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 50899

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 15.02.12 16:22

[img]

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 Servei12

[/img]

With trees, without trees. The red circles denote where the new spotlight has been installed. Note how much sparser the foliage was on the 4th May 07

by Cheshire Cat 15.02.12 16:24

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words - Page 5 Extras_do_livro_Page_3

These two photographs do show that there is a single tree on the corner of the entrance to the carpark and then a significant gap. Of course the branches will spread out but it is not the dense, towering wall of green that some posters have portrayed.

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 15.02.12 16:35

Cheshire Cat wrote:

These two photographs do show that there is a single tree on the corner of the entrance to the carpark and then a significant gap. Of course the branches will spread out but it is not the dense, towering wall of green that some posters have portrayed.

I totally agree, but by saying this I have been threatened with being banned! The first photo in my post above shows what the trees were like on the 4th May 2007

by aiyoyo 15.02.12 16:44

jd wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Oh, are we talking about a stupid abductor who took his time to stroll through a lane in open view to human traffic, that of JT, but clever enough not to leave any forensics at all?

So which is it? Is he stupid or clever? can't have it both ways surely?

Do you mean this abductor?

Actually some of the windows on the apt look really high up away from the ground. A burglar would be lucky if he didnt break a leg on landing.
Let's face it, the practical act of climbing out of a window (even a low window) involves muscles reflexes - bending, stretching, lifting one leg after the other, using one hand to hold onto window ledge or frame while bending whole body frame to get out or to jump out, and that is just not possible when you have a sleeping child slang onto your shoulder.

What more, Janey said he was carrying the child with both arms outstretched, a most difficult position to balance a child if you are in a hurry. He didn't even attempt to wrap up his prey even there were beddings on the bed. And, here we're talking about an abductor who probably got a duplicate key. He must have forgotten to bring his key hey!

Then, he was stupid enough not to notice the left opened patio door. In fact even if the patio door was locked it opens from the inside without a key as far as I understand. One would also question why breaks open the shutter when he could have tried the doors testing to see whether it was left open, on the premise he wasn't stalking the mccanns every movement. If he was stalking them, he would be stupid to break open the shutter wouldnt he, when he could simply walk in from the patio door.

Nothing makes sense in mccanns story. You simply cannot invent scripts round a non-event and expect it to fit.

by Guest 15.02.12 16:46

Daisy, I haven't seen a post threatening to ban you?

I think we are really getting nowhere with "Treegate" big grin

as Shubob named it, everyone sees things differently, and have differing opinions. It's not worth falling out over.

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 15.02.12 16:56

candyfloss wrote:Daisy, I haven't seen a post threatening to ban you?

I think we are really getting nowhere with "Treegate" as Shubob named it, everyone sees things differently, and have differing opinions. It's not worth falling out over.

No candyfloss, because it was via a nasty PM from Stella!

by Cheshire Cat 15.02.12 17:33

Daisy wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:

These two photographs do show that there is a single tree on the corner of the entrance to the carpark and then a significant gap. Of course the branches will spread out but it is not the dense, towering wall of green that some posters have portrayed.

I totally agree, but by saying this I have been threatened with being banned! The first photo in my post above shows what the trees were like on the 4th May 2007

All the photo's looking directly at the front of the appartment 5a show sparse tree cover.

by aiyoyo 15.02.12 17:50

Daisy wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Daisy, I haven't seen a post threatening to ban you?

I think we are really getting nowhere with "Treegate" as Shubob named it, everyone sees things differently, and have differing opinions. It's not worth falling out over.

No candyfloss, because it was via a nasty PM from Stella!

Why, may i ask?

Stella wrote
Those trees are past the third floor of block 5, I really do not think any apartment opposite could have seen a thing.

Cheshire Cat
The difference is, Pat Brown is actually there, in Praia Da Luz. She is telling it as it is, she is doing real research and speaking to people. It's obvious that the window from where Pat took the photograph looks over these trees and gives a clear view of the carpark.

stella wrote
With all due respect Cheshire Cat. If you look at the photographs that Pat has taken and compare these with the ones available in 2007, the trees are no longer there and the light bulbs have been all been changed.

There is no need to be quite so rude and we all do real research here, well most of us anyway.

With no disrespect Stella, you started this with those accusatory remarks. There is nothing wrong with Cheshire Cat's post - I don't see where she was being rude. IMV, she was stating something matter of fact from her viewpoint.

Having the privilege of a moderator is all very well, but respect from fellow posters is not gotten by being intimidating just because you are in that privileged position. I was going to hold my tongue, but if people are getting threats of "ban" over something you started, then that is not right, if I am allowed to say so.

Nothing wrong with having faith in the Yard's Review or having respect for Pat Brown's work, or both - each to one's own opinion.
Calm down, enough already people about this "treegate"; the last thing we want is to become laughing stock.
This squabbling reminds me of the days when fora ban discussions of TB and his work because posters were divided about him and had heated arguments cumulating in the blanket ban.

It's understandable people expect high standard of Pat Brown to get every bit of detail as correct as possible, or she will give mccanns reason to take swipes on her, not that they will need any reason. The more important point is Pat made a pivotal point that no abductor would choose an open, exposed, and overlooked window and/or area to abduct a child. What stood out for me was Pat's comment that Warner Resort cluttered cosy lay out is not conducive to abductor when there are plenty human fish in the open sea in less build up area (not verbatim words but something to that effect).

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I hope we do not allow this thread to descend into dispute, fall out, then ban. Every poster on Madeleine's side is valuable here.

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 15.02.12 18:25

Thanks for being a voice of reason aiyoyo. The reason I'm on my final warning is because I dared to say I thought Stella was rude & unfair to Cheshire Cat by saying the following:

Quote Stella: "Cheshire Cat, you just continue to make yourself look a right idiot. Have you come up with one photo yet from 2007? No."

I won't quote the PM but for speaking my mind I'm told I'm on my final warning and "Next time round, your out of here for good." If that's the case what's the point of being a member here, i'm sick to death of this treatment it's being going on for weeks now! (& I know i'm not the only one at the receiving end) I had hoped by now I had proven that I'm not a troll but sadly Stella still believes i'm here to cause trouble & disrupt things.

You are right, all this does is make us look foolish - a laughing stock. They're loving Stella over at JATYK2 right now.

by Spaniel 15.02.12 18:33

jd wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Oh, are we talking about a stupid abductor who took his time to stroll through a lane in open view to human traffic, that of JT, but clever enough not to leave any forensics at all?

So which is it? Is he stupid or clever? can't have it both ways surely?

Do you mean this abductor?

Do I remember correctly that someone demanded that the PJ release the photofit? Was it the British press?

by Spaniel 15.02.12 18:43

Daisy wrote:[img][/img]

With trees, without trees. The red circles denote where the new spotlight has been installed. Note how much sparser the foliage was on the 4th May 07

by Spaniel 15.02.12 18:50

Spaniel wrote:
Daisy wrote:[img][/img]

With trees, without trees. The red circles denote where the new spotlight has been installed. Note how much sparser the foliage was on the 4th May 07

Nothings left in their wake, even trees.

by C.Edwards 15.02.12 19:07

I've lost track of what's being argued about here. Pat Brown posted a picture from an apartment opposite-ish 5a and remarked on how light and open it all was and how easy it would have been to be seen if you were an abductor going that way. Stella (and I agree with her) pointed out that there were trees in the way then. Google Earth shows that there is only a narrow gap that would have had an unobstructed view of the front of 5a and that would be from the apartments on the far left of the apartment block as you look from the front of 5a.

Although photos show that the trees weren't enormous back then, there was still a considerable amount of foliage. Bear in mind that at night with the streetlights nearer to the trees and the dimly lit (pre spotlight) front of the apartments where 5a was situated and you'd have had dark trees in front of a pretty dark background. It would *not* have been an easy view at all. I daresay if someone had been sitting there with their eye on the front of the apartments they *may* have seen some movement *if* someone had been skulking about there, but they would almost certainly not have had a clear and unrestricted view and definitely not from where Pat Brown took her picture recently.

Bear in mind that the doorway to 5a is tucked around the corner of the projecting wall and that area is pretty much unlit. I have a vague recollection of there being a news story or interview in which it may have even been said that this light was broken so it could have been the black hole of calcutta right there for all we know in the absence of picture proof so far.

None of this would make it easy for an abductor to be seen in my opinion, but I'm still firmly of the opinion that there wasn't one to be seen anyway!