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

by Guest 15.02.12 15:46

Nice one.

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

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!

by Gillyspot 15.02.12 20:05

Don't know when it was taken but clearly before 2009 - picture from Amaral's book. Sorry cant post it direct in here. Can someone do it for me?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AG/Extras_do_livro_Page_3.jpg

by annabel 15.02.12 20:30

by Cheshire Cat 15.02.12 20:49

annabel wrote:

It's clear from this picture that the few trees that were there would have provided very poor cover for an abductor, and as Pat says, this makes the abduction scenario even less believable.

by C.Edwards 15.02.12 22:40

Cheshire Cat wrote:
annabel wrote:

It's clear from this picture that the few trees that were there would have provided very poor cover for an abductor, and as Pat says, this makes the abduction scenario even less believable.

I really don't see how you can make that inference from that picture? The shot was taken standing virtually at the bottom of the tree and there's never any foliage around the base of a tree! Other pictures show quite clearly that there was plenty of foliage higher up. Pat Brown has got the wrong end of the stick about this I feel. I think she will have plenty of useful contributions to make, but I hope that she avoids pitfalls like this again. Whilst it's fair to say that any abductor would shy away from brightly lit, public places, her using an example of a defoliated car park and recently better-lit apartment block than when the event happened is not the greatest example to be using in my opinion. I previously posted why I think it would have been pretty dark and dingy over near the apartment door and I have seen no photographic evidence yet that disproves my theory.

I also think that based on the exchanges earlier today, you're asking for trouble from certain quarters posting inflammatory comments like "it's clear from this picture..."

by aiyoyo 16.02.12 3:19

Daisy wrote: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.

Daisy
From an objective viewpoint, which is my stand always, with due respect to you as well, there is also no need to rub salt in on Stella or inflame a situation best put to bed.
As for the troll issue - no comment. Usually, time will ultimately flash them up.

BTW, who gives a shit what those sickos at the vile site think? I don't!
It's what I think of them that they have to worry about! Far as I am concerned that "diseased blog in question" is best flashed down the toilet.

by aiyoyo 16.02.12 4:20

C.Edwards wrote: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!

To be fair, while we're still on debate of trees, those trees were not exactly sparse, rather the foliage spread out on a level higher than street level 5a's windows.. Effectively it could or would mean people on the street or car park would have an unobstructed view of 5A windows. People in opposite block same level too would have an unobstructed view of 5a's windows.

I agree with you Edwards that foliage can give shadows at night, however that depends on lighting.
If street lights are lower level than foliage level, then 5a would be illuminated without obstruction.
Since Pat took the photos from third level who is to know what can or cannot be seen had the trees been there.
Pat's profiling work is multi-factored basis where plenty angles were given to considerations of the crime scene.
Tree-ful or tree-less, do we agree it's reasonable to say we've established that apt 5a windows are not obstructed by foliage, rather viewable between tree trunks back then?

Pat introduced the unobstructed view and exposed-area angles which is good to know.
She states that despite the change of bulbs, lighting condition is as more or less the same, or she was told from her enquiry more or less that. In that circumstances, her point is valid that no abductor would brazenly walk with his good in hand in fairly well lit and open area without cover, assuming there is an abductor. I don't believe anyone from opp. has anything to see even if they were looking because there was no abductor.

by Ross 16.02.12 4:50

With respect to the posters here, there has been a pretty pointless argument in this thread. Saying 'I think the window could be seen' or 'I think the window couldn't be seen' has no bearing on the reality of the location. From our detached abstracted viewpoint we simply do not have the data to be able to make a conclusion. There are a number of such data points: the distance between the window and the trees; the height of the trees; the precise location of each tree and the gaps between them vis a vis any overlooking window; the distance to the overlooking apartment block; the height of each overlooking balcony allowing for topography.

As Pat Brown is on the scene she will be able to collect most of those details precisely and will no doubt inform us all when she has done so. In the meantime arguing the toss over speculation is a waste of time.

by aiyoyo 16.02.12 6:33

Ross wrote:With respect to the posters here, there has been a pretty pointless argument in this thread. Saying 'I think the window could be seen' or 'I think the window couldn't be seen' has no bearing on the reality of the location. From our detached abstracted viewpoint we simply do not have the data to be able to make a conclusion. There are a number of such data points: the distance between the window and the trees; the height of the trees; the precise location of each tree and the gaps between them vis a vis any overlooking window; the distance to the overlooking apartment block; the height of each overlooking balcony allowing for topography.

As Pat Brown is on the scene she will be able to collect most of those details precisely and will no doubt inform us all when she has done so. In the meantime arguing the toss over speculation is a waste of time.

And, your point?

Pat Brown had done that - collect those details "precisely" (not, as it appears) and came up with pics without trees and putting out data in the pubic domain at the same time about the exposed unobstructed vantage position from opposite block, rendering 5A a fishbowl in the nights, hence people's debate over her oversight as there were trees back in 2007 surrounding 5A, but no longer now.
Pat Brown had acknowledged this point of clarification and revised her blog since.

So to say people do not have the data to make a conclusion is not entirely correct because people have been comparing photos in the public domain both of those from the police files and Pat's blog. While it may be fair to a degree to say it is pointless to argue the viewability or otherwise of the windows in question because people only have virtual reality to go on, with due respect, it's not entirely correct to say it's pointless to debate that because people lack on the scene first hand experience of the physical scene data.

Debates on this forum and elsewhere are mostly based on data in the public domain in case you haven't noticed.
If your point is that the "treegate" issue should be given a rest, then that's fair enough, but a rather moot point by now.
People were not wrong to point out that Pat Brown should avoid such pitfall, so as to avoid devaluing of her work.

eta: Incidentally there are some really good photos on this link:http://sojo-adventures.tripod.com/id8.html - courtesy of Pamalan's site.

by Bebootje 16.02.12 8:07

Clear view or not. It is just one of the aspects of the totally impossible and unbelievable "ordered by peadofile ring abductor" story.
Why would an abductor leave through the front door (with the risk being seen by Gerry/Wilkins, of whom he would be aware) while he entered through the unlocked patio doors and could easily leave the same way with less risk of being seen.
Why - if the abduction was premeditated - was the abductor "by feet" where the use of a car would have been easier. The car park was next to the appartement.
The simple fact that a man - similar to Gerry - walked the streets with a child similar to Madeleine and Gerry at that point didn't have a car available says a lot doesn't it.

by C.Edwards 16.02.12 8:25

Bebootje wrote:Clear view or not. It is just one of the aspects of the totally impossible and unbelievable "ordered by peadofile ring abductor" story.
Why would an abductor leave through the front door (with the risk being seen by Gerry/Wilkins, of whom he would be aware) while he entered through the unlocked patio doors and could easily leave the same way with less risk of being seen.
Why - if the abduction was premeditated - was the abductor "by feet" where the use of a car would have been easier. The car park was next to the appartement.
The simple fact that a man - similar to Gerry - walked the streets with a child similar to Madeleine and Gerry at that point didn't have a car available says a lot doesn't it.

It's the other way around, Bebootje. The patio doors were the ones near the alley where Gerry & Jez were supposed to be having their conversation. This is why some are proposing the theory that any abductor would go in the front instead. But as the front door was locked (according to witness statements) this means any abductor either had to have one of the fabled duplicated keys or break in via the fabled undamaged shutters.