Pat Brown's Trip to Portugal VIDEO

With not a lot of info to work with, the video 'morphed' into a very important 'message'.

Hope you enjoy!

Excellent HiDeHo - hope many people get to see it and tweet it etc.

Thanks for all your hard work - your videos certainly hit the spot!

HiDeHo wrote:With not a lot of info to work with, the video 'morphed' into a very important 'message'.

Hope you enjoy!

That is absolutley brilliant!

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-how.html


Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street





One
can accept that on a night out with friends, drinking wine and chatting
- maybe some folks are not perfectly correct with the exact time
someone came and went. However, some things should be pretty clear and
easy to remember about the night of and the day after a horrific event.
Of all the Tapas 9 claims as to how things went down on the evening of
May 3, 2007, Jane Tanner´s 9:15 (approximate) sighting of a man hurrying
along Dr Augusthino da Silva with a child draped in his outstretch arms
is the most unbelievable and unsupportable.


Let's
ignore for now the issues of the lighting and whether Jane would be
able see the details of the man and child's clothing so well. In order
to prove whether she could or she could we would have to test her
ability with a number of crime reenactments with the present lighting
and, if one was able to see what she saw under those conditions, then
one would have to use quite a bit of scientific and technical skill to
build a set with the calculated lighting of that night and time and see
if one could still see those details. I cannot obviously due that at
this time, so I cannot make any absolute determinations on her ability
to see what she said she saw.

However, I can comment on what Gerry and Jeremy (Jeremy Wilkins, also called Jez) said they didn't see - namely Jane.

Retired
British police officer, PM, and I reenacted the scenario and I learned
something very interesting. If Gerry's claim that he crossed the street,
the Rua Dr Gentil Martins (in his later statement, not his first which
only said on his way back to the Tapas, he "crossed ways" which should
mean "ran into," not ran across the street to talk to) to
speak to Jeremy is true, then it is indeed possible for the two men to
have neither seen Jane nor any man carrying a child across the street at the corner whilst they were conversing.

PM
took thirteen steps to cross from one side to the other and I saw him
out of the corner of my eye from the spot Gerry says he was standing
with Jeremy. If, as Peter reminded me as we discussed the way men chat
and the way women chat, that men tend to talk less face to face as
women, but more at angles, looking about themselves and not at each
other, it would be totally possible for the men to have their backs to
the street behind and never see a men quickly walk by, even if it took
him thirteen strides. Interestingly, if they are looking down at a baby
in a pram or off to the left side of the street, they might actually
have not seen Jane go by either.

But, Jane denies that is how it
went down and Jeremy agrees with her. Both state Jerry and Jeremy were
on the same side of the street Jane walked up and Jane claims she was
right on top of them when she walked by. Now, I would say, if this was
true, it doesn't matter where these men were looking while talking; at
least one would see Jane, and, more likely, both of them. And, if they
were positioned in such a way that both of their backs were to Jane as
she came up behind them, they would have seen the man crossing directly
in front of them. If they had their backs to the man behind them, they
couldn't have missed Jane walking straight at them. No matter exactly
how they were standing, it is hardly believable that neither man would
notice the only other person on the street trotting right up to them,
past them, and on to the end of the street. Anyone on the street at that
time of night at a time when Praia da Luz is very empty would very
likely catch one's attention, so Jane didn't get lost in the crowd.

Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.

No,
I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards
me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have
definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been
long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because
I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost
what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse
about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And,
again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know
Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way,
so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.

Let’s
see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or
she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he
would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own
child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them,
that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe
his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah,
“HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT,
I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”
All
of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of
deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply
true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as
she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007
interview:
She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children.
This
is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that
this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after
Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children
already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught
up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a
matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely
Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not.
For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her
interview.
But, you might point out, as Jane did:
... if I was trying to make this up, don’t you think I would have made damn sure they saw me?
Yes,
I guess you would... if you could have, Jane. The problem is Jeremy
Wilkins didn’t see you and, if Gerry was standing with his back to you,
then Jeremy was most likely facing you and would have seen you clearly
coming up the way. Or, if you want to go back to men both standing sort
of at angles and not looking directly at each other, both men would have
seen you AND the man carrying the child as you walked past them into
their view and the man crossed the road directly in front of them.
Tricky bit of a problem, eh?
Jeremy Wilkins says he and Gerry were standing right by the gate on the apartment side of the road.
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.
Jane
says she walked right up to them and passed them. Jeremy Wilkins says
he never saw her or the man. Gerry says he never saw her or the man
which he must say or he has to call Wilkins a liar. I think he solves
this problem by moving their location to the opposite side of the road
where it is possible for them to both have not seen Jane or any man with
a child. Then he doesn’t have to go up against Wilkins, but merely
state he remembers where they were standing a bit differently.

It is Kate who sums the whole situation up quite interestingly in her book, Madeleine.
Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there.
Indeed!
What is important is all three of them were there. What does it really
matter if all three of them are there? What does it matter if Jane
Tanner saw the man five minutes later when she returned and neither man
was on the street? It matters because Jeremy Wilkins gives Gerry an
alibi. No, not Jane. Jane Tanner is not that useful in giving Gerry an
alibi because she is one of the Tapas 9. Jeremy Wilkins is the LAST
UNBIASED WITNESS who saw Gerry before Madeleine was found missing and
before the Smiths’ 9:50-9:55 sighting of a man carrying a little child
toward the beach.
No one outside the Tapas 9
can verify that Gerry returned to the table after his 9:15 check on his
children or that he remained at the table until Kate gave the alarm.
Jeremy Wilkins, being with Gerry at the time Jane sees “the abductor
carrying off a child,” gives Gerry an airtight alibi for the only time
that he can get one for that evening during that time frame.
Considering
Kate and Gerry downplayed any importance to the Smith sighting until
far later when they agreed it could be the abductor but ONLY if it was
the same man Jane saw and Kate insists that it is mighty important the
three of them were there when Jane saw a child being carried off, I
repeat, the only reason this should be a big deal is that Jeremy is
Gerry’s alibi.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Isn't it strange that JT doesn't mention the baby's buggy in her statement when she sees GM and JW? As she was able to describe Madeleine's pyjamas so well I would of thought she would of noticed the buggy.

HiDeHo,

Brilliant. Well done. Hope it gets circulated around on the social networking websites.