Re: Pat Brown - What about the Window

by Me 23.02.12 14:14

PeterMac wrote:Full text

Pat Brown
I discovered more about the situation on the street; I learnt about the locks on the doors and how they work; how the shutter and window would be impossible to open from the outside;

Can someone clarify i thought the video showed that the shutters could be opened from the outside?

by Cheshire Cat 23.02.12 15:40

Gonçalo Amaral speaks to IOL PortugalDiário, 03/04 August 2008

PortugalDiário: The PJ's report dismisses the Smiths' testimony, due to the hour at which they say they saw the person with the child…

Gonçalo Amaral: 'It cannot be that way, because nobody knows for sure at what time the things happened. The reconstruction was not made, therefore it is impossible to know for certain. The employees do not state that Gerry McCann was in the restaurant. They only say that people were sitting down and getting up from the table. Their testimony [Smith] is very credible. The way that the person walked, the clumsy manner in which the child was held. It is nothing that sounds invented. Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further.'

I found it puzzling why the PJ investigation under Rebelo did not follow up on the Smith sighting. The reason given was that Gerry was sitting in the restaurant at the time of the sighting so it was not him. However, the post Amaral phase of the investigation seemed more concerned with archiving the investigation rather than an attempt to get to the truth. The Tapas were handled with 'Kid gloves' and Mr Smith was not heard again.

Perhaps this reveals just how crucial a witness Mr Smith is in getting to the truth? Goncalo Amaral says that, despite the final PJ report placing McCann in the restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting, this 'fact' is not proven and the evidence is not there to back it up.

by russiandoll 23.02.12 17:21

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

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

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

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

by aiyoyo 23.02.12 17:56

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

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

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

No abduction and mccanns not involved...?

by Cheshire Cat 23.02.12 19:01

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

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

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

No abduction and mccanns not involved...?

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

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

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

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

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 23.02.12 19:14

Cheshire Cat wrote:

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

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

by russiandoll 23.02.12 19:18

Daisy wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:

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

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

could not agree more and am v puzzled as to why one was not issued.

by rainbow-fairy 24.02.12 9:01

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the back-up, russiandoll, means a lot...
I've thought more about this, slept on it, and I still can't see what proving Gerry to be at the table proves?
First, you would have to prove that Smith saw Madeleine being carried. If it wasn't her, then proof of where Gerry was or wasn't becomes irrelevant. You would also need to have established beyond doubt that the McCann's were utterly truthful up to that point, ie they put all three kids to bed and left them... Do we know for SURE Maddie was in 5A at all to be 'abducted' anyway? If not, all proving Gerry was at the table proves that Smiths did NOT see Gerry - doesn't prove Maddie was abducted, yet nor does it prove she wasn't...
I don't think a reconstruction is the best way to get to the truth. A starting point, yes, BUT imo the ONLY way of getting to the truth is re-interviewing the T9, under caution. Without their previous statements as a crib card. No kid gloves, no prompts. A child is missing, these adults are all covering up something IMO and they should be interviewed as hard as needed.

by rainbow-fairy 24.02.12 9:04

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the back-up, russiandoll, means a lot...
I've thought more about this, slept on it, and I still can't see what proving Gerry to be at the table proves?
First, you would have to prove that Smith saw Madeleine being carried. If it wasn't her, then proof of where Gerry was or wasn't becomes irrelevant. You would also need to have established beyond doubt that the McCann's were utterly truthful up to that point, ie they put all three kids to bed and left them... Do we know for SURE Maddie was in 5A at all to be 'abducted' anyway? If not, all proving Gerry was at the table proves that Smiths did NOT see Gerry - doesn't prove Maddie was abducted, yet nor does it prove she wasn't...
I don't think a reconstruction is the best way to get to the truth. A starting point, yes, BUT imo the ONLY way of getting to the truth is re-interviewing the T9, under caution. Without their previous statements as a crib card. No kid gloves, no prompts. A child is missing, these adults are all covering up something IMO and they should be interviewed as hard as needed.

by **tigger** 24.02.12 9:08

Just as an example: http://www.steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com/2011/08/jeremy-wilkins-with-his-daughter.html

And from Brigid: Going back to that article written by Bridget O'donnell she says:
"There was a warm camaraderie among the parents, a shared happy
weariness and deadpan banter. Our children made friends in the kiddie club and
at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde
three-year-old girls in the group."

That never was Madeleine imo. An abductor with a blonde girl of about 3 was what was required. Not that I think it was JW.

by aiyoyo 24.02.12 13:41

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

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

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

No abduction and mccanns not involved...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

by **Nina** 24.02.12 20:39

Would someone please give me the link to Pat Brown's blog? The only link I have was when she wrote about the shutters and it doesn't update from that.

Thankyou in anticipation Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 10 725573

Pat Brown - What about the Window - Page 10 725573

by uppatoffee 24.02.12 21:33

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

by **Nina** 25.02.12 15:15

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

Thankyou uppatoffee, much appreciated.

by russiandoll 10.07.13 20:18

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

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

by Guest 10.07.13 21:11

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

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

In Gerry's statement on 10th May he states that because they were sure the blinds couldn't be opened from the outside they never checked if the windows were locked. But what I don't get is he says it's unlikely the front door was locked. If his daughter was abducted one would think the front door is the first thing they'd have checked. If it was unlocked then anyone could leave the house from the inside without a key including Madeleine but nobody could have gained access.

by Guest 10.07.13 21:19

Let's be honest: their story has more holes than a Swiss Emmenthaler cheese ...

by russiandoll 10.07.13 21:19

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

So what did holidaymakers do on very hot nights? They would need some windows open, but closed shutters still allowed air in and gave security I gather.
So they would have to be designed so they could not open or stay open long from outside, because your apartment would not be secure while you slept.

by lufc50337 10.07.13 21:21

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

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

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

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

by Casey5 10.07.13 21:43

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

[color:ee20=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

Note: On Martin Brunt's documentary 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, aired on 24 December 2007, Prof David Barclay, one of Britain's top forensic consultants said: "I think it's impossible for somebody to get in and out, through that window without leaving a forensic trace. Apart from anything else, the window sills in that area are covered in green lichen. The minute you try and scrape over the window sills you would have left marks and we know that the scenes of crime lady, the next morning, was looking for exactly that."

Interestingly, Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine' on 18 October 2007. In that documentary, it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily.

They also tested the thumb prints, that showed up under the red dust of the forensic fingerprint powder, and proved the prints came from somebody moving the shutter from inside the apartment.
[color:ee20=000000]
Again, Prof Dave Barclay said: "We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging but it's difficult to see how anybody could have interefered with those shutters, from outside, without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible."

[color:ee20=000000]edited to [color:ee20=000000]add last paragraph

Latest topics