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 7 Mm11

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 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 7 Mm11

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Regist10

Pat Brown - What about the Window

Page 7 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Guest 19.02.12 18:33

And if Pat says this about the Tanner sighting - so where does that leave the abductor, and the open shutters?

PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatB

Coming soon: The evidence does not support Jane Tanner´s sighting. #McCann
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Me 19.02.12 18:35

wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.

____________________
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 18:50

candyfloss wrote:And if Pat says this about the Tanner sighting - so where does that leave the abductor, and the open shutters?

PAT BROWN@ProfilerPatB

Coming soon: The evidence does not support Jane Tanner´s sighting. #McCann

Well we will have to wait and see about the evidence that Pat Brown has about Jane Tanner's sighting.

But in Pat Browns recent blogs we have seen that here evidence is not always as good as she claims haven't we?

First there was that blog about a Cease and Desist letter. She had to correct that because it was sent to completely the wrong person. And she still has got to explain why it was called a Cease and Desist letter when there was nothing about ceasing or desisting in it.
Oh and she still hasn't mentioned any reply from "Isabel" at CR has she?

Then there was the blog from PDL where Pat Brown claimed that photos from a very much changed resort of PDL in 2012 were somehow evidence of how bright the carpark was in 2007. She has since corrected that and made it clear that here "evidence" of the photos didn't actually manage to show what she said they did.

It will be very interesting to see what evidence she might have uncovered that proves Jane Tanner wrong. After all the photo that she has produced so far relating to Jane Tanner was completely the wrong way round and proved precisely nothing.

Still we wait in anticipation of a breakthrough from Pat.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 18:51

Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.

Yes and there is no evidence of any involvement of the McCanns in any crime either. Interesting that isn't it. So until there is such evidence perhaps nobody should go accusing them of things.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 18:52

Gillyspot wrote:A point of clarity for wgbrother

Gerry McCann full statement regarding window/shutters on 4.5.07

"The witness and his wife, between this time and 20.30 stayed in the apartment relaxing and drinking a glass of wine. After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner. As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

Gerry McCann Full statement regarding the windows/shutters on 10.5.07

" He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Can't seen any clarity of windows or shutters being opened or closed here.


Now try his other statement. You might get there eventually.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 18:56

rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Me speculate wgbrother, you are the one speculating about the pieces of wood, the looking in through a window, that you couldn't see through cos the curtains were closed Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 742129 Prof. David Barclay was clear, he said ARE not could be or might be and that was what the forensics lady was looking for. How would he know she was looking for this specifically?

Actually he said all the windowsills in the AREA are covered. How would he know that? Has he looked at them ALL? After all thats what he said. Not the selective bit that you are quoting.
And once again you are speculating that the forensics lady was looking for lichen. Is there anything in the files to back up your speculation?
And you are of course speculating that there wasnt just a tiny gap between the closed curtains that could be seen through. Are all closed curtains so tightly shut in your experience that no small crack exists between them?
We ALL of us are speculating in one way or another. Just some more sensibly than others Wink
wgbrother, when asked you stated Jane Tanner 'probably' wouldn't have noticed the shutter partly up, as it was 'too dark' - yet, the only piece of 'evidence' that backs up abduction comes from Jane (remember it was 'too dark' to see a shutter) and YET - she was able to describe a frill on the bottom of the child's pyjama's, several yards away. Get real!
Speculating on entry points is pointless. Its exit point we need to worry about.
I firmly believe the person who took Madeleine had a key, was more acquainted with PdL than we've been led to believe, and had no need to be skulking around looking through curtains...

The shutter is on the wall of the apartment in a car park with no lighting and from which the street lighting was obscured by a mass of tall trees.

The person she claims to have seen would have been within a couple of feet of the street light on the corner of the road.

Very big difference and a good explanation as to the difference in visibility.

Your point about the key is very interesting. There do seem to have been a large number of keys floating around for the apartments. Didn't one of the Tapas even leave their key under the mat? I wonder if other occupants of 5A had done that in the past and one gone missing? Good point you make there.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 19:02

Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.
Me either, Me! Wink Nothing changes.
I have never believed the 'abduction hypothesis' and the likelihood (or not) of anyone getting through the shutters wasn't top reason WHY I didn't believe.
By their own words, actions and statements the McCanns and friends have 99% told us what did and did not happen.
The reason we can't make a sensible 'abduction theory' is because you can't turn a non-event into an event. Precisely why the T9 resisted the reconstruction - it was plainly obvious it would show their stories up for what they were - fantasy. Nothing more.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:07

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.
Me either, Me! Wink Nothing changes.
I have never believed the 'abduction hypothesis' and the likelihood (or not) of anyone getting through the shutters wasn't top reason WHY I didn't believe.
By their own words, actions and statements the McCanns and friends have 99% told us what did and did not happen.
The reason we can't make a sensible 'abduction theory' is because you can't turn a non-event into an event. Precisely why the T9 resisted the reconstruction - it was plainly obvious it would show their stories up for what they were - fantasy. Nothing more.

Sensible theory then. Abductor had a key, went in via front door, left via front door, carried Madeleine away, was seen by Jane Tanner so panicked and hid for a few minutes in an alley or somewhere less visible, later made his way to another location in PDL and was seen by Smiths en route.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Me 19.02.12 19:08

wgbrother wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.

Yes and there is no evidence of any involvement of the McCanns in any crime either. Interesting that isn't it. So until there is such evidence perhaps nobody should go accusing them of things.

So then to conclude for abduction we STILL have absolutely nothing.

But yet from the McCann's and their team there is plenty of evidence of them lying and colluding, refusing to answer questions, the dog evidence in their apartment, belongings and clothes, the Smith sighting, the phone records, the creche records etc.

Plenty of stuff i'm sure you're all too familiar with.

And why is real the concrete evidence not there? Because they refused to assist the investigation and help move it forward by refusing to take part in a reconstruction and fleeing Portugal having taken on the UK's leading extradition lawyers.

Why would they do that and what conclusions can we draw from this as to which scenario is more likely as a result of this?

The one time this case went before a Judge you are no doubt aware of those Judges' conclusions regarding Amaral's findings of parental involvement being:

A "valid police led interpretation of the facts"

So not quite no evidence then if it is sufficent for 3 judges to arrive at that conclusion, is it?

Which actually suggest that perhaps with a little more work from the detectives and with more determintation from the prosecutor then a case could have been successful based on the body of evidence so far gathered.

So until you and your merry band can come up with anything more substantial than bandwagon jumping on exterior opening shutters i know which scenario is the most likely and has more evidence behind 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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Me 19.02.12 19:13

wgbrother wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.
Me either, Me! Wink Nothing changes.
I have never believed the 'abduction hypothesis' and the likelihood (or not) of anyone getting through the shutters wasn't top reason WHY I didn't believe.
By their own words, actions and statements the McCanns and friends have 99% told us what did and did not happen.
The reason we can't make a sensible 'abduction theory' is because you can't turn a non-event into an event. Precisely why the T9 resisted the reconstruction - it was plainly obvious it would show their stories up for what they were - fantasy. Nothing more.

Sensible theory then. Abductor had a key, went in via front door, left via front door, carried Madeleine away, was seen by Jane Tanner so panicked and hid for a few minutes in an alley or somewhere less visible, later made his way to another location in PDL and was seen by Smiths en route.

Ok let's play this one out?

Any keys reported missing?
Any keys reproted as being copied?
Why were the windows / shutters open by the team?
Why walk that way across the road Jerry was talking on?
Which location in PDL?
What was he doing for the time between being seen at 9.20 by Jane and being seen by the Smiths at 9.50? It doesn't take 30 minutes to walk 400 yards.
Is Jane certain she saw someone because her description changed to suich a degree she identified Murat as the man (despite him looking nothing like the inital drawings) then recanted it was proven it wasn't him

It's not a sensible theory when there is nothing whatsoever to back it up and it flies in the face of what we know.

____________________
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by aiyoyo 19.02.12 19:18

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 7 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,.


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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 19:28

wgbrother wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:A point of clarity for wgbrother

Gerry McCann full statement regarding window/shutters on 4.5.07

"The witness and his wife, between this time and 20.30 stayed in the apartment relaxing and drinking a glass of wine. After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner. As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

Gerry McCann Full statement regarding the windows/shutters on 10.5.07

" He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Can't seen any clarity of windows or shutters being opened or closed here.


Now try his other statement. You might get there eventually.
wgbrother, you are being plain obnoxious now, just give the link to the relevant statement and quote (if it exists). Why it should be so different to any others is beyond me frankly.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Invinoveritas 19.02.12 19:33

perhaps it was Gerry who opened the front door and passed a live/dead Madeleine out, this has up to know (IMO) never been considered, we tend to consider open or shut shutters and argue/discuss whether they were open or shut

____________________
"A voyage of discovery is not just seeing new sights - it is seeing familiar sights with new eyes." Proust
Invinoveritas
Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Activity : 393
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:34

Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.

Yes and there is no evidence of any involvement of the McCanns in any crime either. Interesting that isn't it. So until there is such evidence perhaps nobody should go accusing them of things.

So then to conclude for abduction we STILL have absolutely nothing.

But yet from the McCann's and their team there is plenty of evidence of them lying and colluding, refusing to answer questions, the dog evidence in their apartment, belongings and clothes, the Smith sighting, the phone records, the creche records etc.

Plenty of stuff i'm sure you're all too familiar with.

And why is real the concrete evidence not there? Because they refused to assist the investigation and help move it forward by refusing to take part in a reconstruction and fleeing Portugal having taken on the UK's leading extradition lawyers.

Why would they do that and what conclusions can we draw from this as to which scenario is more likely as a result of this?

The one time this case went before a Judge you are no doubt aware of those Judges' conclusions regarding Amaral's findings of parental involvement being:

A "valid police led interpretation of the facts"

So not quite no evidence then if it is sufficent for 3 judges to arrive at that conclusion, is it?

Which actually suggest that perhaps with a little more work from the detectives and with more determintation from the prosecutor then a case could have been successful based on the body of evidence so far gathered.

So until you and your merry band can come up with anything more substantial than bandwagon jumping on exterior opening shutters i know which scenario is the most likely and has more evidence behind it.

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.

____________________

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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:40

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 7 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.

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.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:42

rainbow-fairy wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:A point of clarity for wgbrother

Gerry McCann full statement regarding window/shutters on 4.5.07

"The witness and his wife, between this time and 20.30 stayed in the apartment relaxing and drinking a glass of wine. After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner. As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

Gerry McCann Full statement regarding the windows/shutters on 10.5.07

" He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Can't seen any clarity of windows or shutters being opened or closed here.


Now try his other statement. You might get there eventually.
wgbrother, you are being plain obnoxious now, just give the link to the relevant statement and quote (if it exists). Why it should be so different to any others is beyond me frankly.

It would be helpful if people could follow the thread more carefully. The precise link has been posted much earlier by another poster.
As for me being obnoxious, I don't take kindly to people posting a blunt, WRONG at me when I actually know I am not wrong. Thats rather rude of the person who did that don't you think? So my lack of gracious assistance to the lady was due to that and not to my actually being obnoxious.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Guest 19.02.12 19:44

Perhaps you could copy the relevant bit for us wgbrother like other posters have done to illustrate their point.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Gillyspot 19.02.12 19:45

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 7 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.

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.



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.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
Gillyspot
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-06-13

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:51

Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.
Me either, Me! Wink Nothing changes.
I have never believed the 'abduction hypothesis' and the likelihood (or not) of anyone getting through the shutters wasn't top reason WHY I didn't believe.
By their own words, actions and statements the McCanns and friends have 99% told us what did and did not happen.
The reason we can't make a sensible 'abduction theory' is because you can't turn a non-event into an event. Precisely why the T9 resisted the reconstruction - it was plainly obvious it would show their stories up for what they were - fantasy. Nothing more.

Sensible theory then. Abductor had a key, went in via front door, left via front door, carried Madeleine away, was seen by Jane Tanner so panicked and hid for a few minutes in an alley or somewhere less visible, later made his way to another location in PDL and was seen by Smiths en route.

Ok let's play this one out?

Any keys reported missing?
Any keys reproted as being copied?
Why were the windows / shutters open by the team?
Why walk that way across the road Jerry was talking on?
Which location in PDL?
What was he doing for the time between being seen at 9.20 by Jane and being seen by the Smiths at 9.50? It doesn't take 30 minutes to walk 400 yards.
Is Jane certain she saw someone because her description changed to suich a degree she identified Murat as the man (despite him looking nothing like the inital drawings) then recanted it was proven it wasn't him

It's not a sensible theory when there is nothing whatsoever to back it up and it flies in the face of what we know.

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.
Any keys reported copied? Are you having a laugh? Do criminals report they have copied people's keys?
Which team? PJ forensics team of one, the woman who did her work without gloves?
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.
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.

____________________

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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by rainbow-fairy 19.02.12 19:53

Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.
Me either, Me! Wink Nothing changes.
I have never believed the 'abduction hypothesis' and the likelihood (or not) of anyone getting through the shutters wasn't top reason WHY I didn't believe.
By their own words, actions and statements the McCanns and friends have 99% told us what did and did not happen.
The reason we can't make a sensible 'abduction theory' is because you can't turn a non-event into an event. Precisely why the T9 resisted the reconstruction - it was plainly obvious it would show their stories up for what they were - fantasy. Nothing more.

Sensible theory then. Abductor had a key, went in via front door, left via front door, carried Madeleine away, was seen by Jane Tanner so panicked and hid for a few minutes in an alley or somewhere less visible, later made his way to another location in PDL and was seen by Smiths en route.

Ok let's play this one out?

Any keys reported missing?
Any keys reproted as being copied?
Why were the windows / shutters open by the team?
Why walk that way across the road Jerry was talking on?
Which location in PDL?
What was he doing for the time between being seen at 9.20 by Jane and being seen by the Smiths at 9.50? It doesn't take 30 minutes to walk 400 yards.
Is Jane certain she saw someone because her description changed to suich a degree she identified Murat as the man (despite him looking nothing like the inital drawings) then recanted it was proven it wasn't him

It's not a sensible theory when there is nothing whatsoever to back it up and it flies in the face of what we know.
Bravo, Me!
Its always amusing when Pro's come up with 'sensible' theories like this - they can be pulled apart in seconds. I'll say it again - precisely the reason why NONE of the T9 were willing to attend the reconstruction.
wgbrother seems to have badly misread my comment about 'the person who took Madeleine' having a key... nowhere in that did I mention an 'abductor' - far from it!
They also seem to include the Smith sighting whilst disregarding Mr Smith is pretty certain it was Gerry McCann! Unbelievable...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra FelgueirasPat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:55

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 7 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.

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.



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.

The one gust of wind reported does not make a windy night. Nobody else reported it being a windy night. Just chilly.

It matters greatly that the fact that the windows can be lifted from the outside has been proven by Pat Brown because it dispels the forum myth that they cannot be and therefore is one tiny little step further to the truth.

As for the window being locked. As I have already stated Gerry is clear that he does not recall whether they were or not. It appears to be a sliding window and would therefore be very easy to push open from the outside if not locked (and no fingerprints either if you used a stick to push or were wearing gloves.

____________________

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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 19:59

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Me wrote:
wgbrother wrote:

There is no doubt that it has now been shown that it is feasible to open the shutters, that Gerry himself said that the window might not have been locked and therefore that somebody could have entered or exited via that route..

Of course somebody could have entered through the shutter, equally someone COULD have entered through the patio or indeed the main door.

But there is no still no evidence to support entry via any of these three routes. So until such time as there is then nothing changes as far as i'm concerned.
Me either, Me! Wink Nothing changes.
I have never believed the 'abduction hypothesis' and the likelihood (or not) of anyone getting through the shutters wasn't top reason WHY I didn't believe.
By their own words, actions and statements the McCanns and friends have 99% told us what did and did not happen.
The reason we can't make a sensible 'abduction theory' is because you can't turn a non-event into an event. Precisely why the T9 resisted the reconstruction - it was plainly obvious it would show their stories up for what they were - fantasy. Nothing more.

Sensible theory then. Abductor had a key, went in via front door, left via front door, carried Madeleine away, was seen by Jane Tanner so panicked and hid for a few minutes in an alley or somewhere less visible, later made his way to another location in PDL and was seen by Smiths en route.

Ok let's play this one out?

Any keys reported missing?
Any keys reproted as being copied?
Why were the windows / shutters open by the team?
Why walk that way across the road Jerry was talking on?
Which location in PDL?
What was he doing for the time between being seen at 9.20 by Jane and being seen by the Smiths at 9.50? It doesn't take 30 minutes to walk 400 yards.
Is Jane certain she saw someone because her description changed to suich a degree she identified Murat as the man (despite him looking nothing like the inital drawings) then recanted it was proven it wasn't him

It's not a sensible theory when there is nothing whatsoever to back it up and it flies in the face of what we know.
Bravo, Me!
Its always amusing when Pro's come up with 'sensible' theories like this - they can be pulled apart in seconds. I'll say it again - precisely the reason why NONE of the T9 were willing to attend the reconstruction.
wgbrother seems to have badly misread my comment about 'the person who took Madeleine' having a key... nowhere in that did I mention an 'abductor' - far from it!
They also seem to include the Smith sighting whilst disregarding Mr Smith is pretty certain it was Gerry McCann! Unbelievable...

Bravo for asking a series of questions which are actually easily answered as I have done.

There is nothing in my theory which has so far been pulled apart.

I did not misread your comment at all. I simply realised you were presuming it may have been one particular individual rather than being open minded and accepting that it could either have been an abductor or the individual you seem so reluctant to mention by name. The fact is that a potential abductor would not have announced that he had a copied or stolen or borrowed key as your friend laughingly suggests. And that it is perfectly possible that such a person existed.

As for the Smiths. Am I not correct in saying that none of the other accounts from the family even suggest that there was a possibility that it was Gerry McCann as Martin Smith does. Odd that, don't you think?
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by worriedmum 19.02.12 20:07

Just to get back to the original topic and video, do you think it is possible (if this is of 5a)that the shutter has had so much attention that it has become looser? Pat Brown has quite openly disclosed that the trees and lights may be different to the time when Madeleine disappeared- so could there be other differences? Has anyone identified the manufacturer?
worriedmum
worriedmum

Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by wgbrother 19.02.12 20:19

worriedmum wrote:Just to get back to the original topic and video, do you think it is possible (if this is of 5a)that the shutter has had so much attention that it has become looser? Pat Brown has quite openly disclosed that the trees and lights may be different to the time when Madeleine disappeared- so could there be other differences? Has anyone identified the manufacturer?

Presumably that will all be in Pat Browns full report. Manufacturor, comparison with other shutters in the block which have not had the same attention. Details as to whether it was Apt 5A and if so how they got permission to go poking around and disturbing things like shutters.
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 7 Empty Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

Post by Me 19.02.12 21:15

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 7 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?

____________________
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

Page 7 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 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