Pat brown blog - how Jane Tanner got lost in a crowd on empty street

latest from Pat

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/


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

Further reading: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1888-the-day-when-jane-tanner-sobbed-and-told-all-to-the-sun

While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

Stewie wrote:latest from Pat

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/


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

Read it. Think about it. Re-read the Algarve123 article. Think about it. Pat is amazing.

The PJ must have worked that out themselves begging the question for them as to why Jane Tanner fabricated the sighting.
Unless the Tapas 9 co-operate, the Police are forced by default of the evidence to arrive at only conclusion possible.

There is nothing new in Pat's conclusion. Except in having reconstructed the scene from the physical location first hand, and laying it out in that context the obvious is unavoidable. She simply illustrated what the Portuguese said all along that the mccanns did not clear themselves by their refusal to do the reconstruction. It's obvious the mccanns and friends would have no where to hide their story had they agreed to do the reconstruction.

This coming from a professional crime profiler, cannot be seen in the same light as forum "nutters" distorting data as expressed by gerry at LI where he told people about his "tolerance" for free speech. Just as well Pat's articles are unlikely to appear in the UK mainstream else I would like to see how Gerry and Kate is going to spin that.

It is evident imo that it gave Gerry an alibi and it's great that Pat and PM did this reconstruction. The person in this case that bothers me the most is David Payne. From his RI he went to apartment 5a at Gerry's request, saw Madeleine and the twins, remembers how angelic they looked etc. He was then late for dinner as usual. His wife and mother-in-law went to dinner before him as he was doing bedtime duty. According to the RI's for all three of the Payne family, David did not leave the table, didn't need to as they had a baby monitor, which when Kate's entrance to the Tapas bar came was left with Dianne Webster and she was instructed to stay at the table in case Madeleine wandered in there. When something is so watertight (IMO) then it needs a further look. From what I see, GM has an alibi (created or not) but DP seemed to NOT need one. It may be a 'look over here and not over there' scenario again. We're getting used to them now.

Well done Pat and PeterMac.

david_uk wrote:While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

I don't think you can really compare forumers discussing these matters with actually being out there and seeing the lie of the land first hand. If nothing else, the symbolic importance of Pat going from US to PdL to check out the scene when the Tapas bunch would not make the short flight from UK at the request of the police in an investigation, speaks volumes. Don't forget, she has a lawsuit against the mc's pending, so I would suggest Pat will be very circumspect about what she shares at this stage. She would be VERY unwise to make many of her findings public at this stage. Not least because it would give the TM and lawyers a heads up of what might be coming their way.

aiyoyo wrote:The PJ must have worked that out themselves begging the question for them as to why Jane Tanner fabricated the sighting.
Unless the Tapas 9 co-operate, the Police are forced by default of the evidence to arrive at only conclusion possible.

There is nothing new in Pat's conclusion. Except in having reconstructed the scene from the physical location first hand, and laying it out in that context the obvious is unavoidable. She simply illustrated what the Portuguese said all along that the mccanns did not clear themselves by their refusal to do the reconstruction. It's obvious the mccanns and friends would have no where to hide their story had they agreed to do the reconstruction.

This coming from a professional crime profiler, cannot be seen in the same light as forum "nutters" distorting data as expressed by gerry at LI where he told people about his "tolerance" for free speech. Just as well Pat's articles are unlikely to appear in the UK mainstream else I would like to see how Gerry and Kate is going to spin that.

I'm so looking forward to the rest!
That's the way I see it. The next useful thing to check is how Gerry tried to move and extend the time he and JW talked. I know I've read about that, initially the time JW gave and Gerry's account varied rather a lot.
This may well have been to have the independent sighting in PdL to follow on more closely.
When that didn't work, the Smiths' sighting was largely ignored by TM. So when was that sighting finally sanctioned by them? It's in the bewk as yet another reason to vilify the PJ.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

david_uk wrote:While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

I don't think you can really compare forumers discussing these matters with actually being out there and seeing the lie of the land first hand. If nothing else, the symbolic importance of Pat going from US to PdL to check out the scene when the Tapas bunch would not make the short flight from UK at the request of the police in an investigation, speaks volumes. Don't forget, she has a lawsuit against the mc's pending, so I would suggest Pat will be very circumspect about what she shares at this stage. She would be VERY unwise to make many of her findings public at this stage. Not least because it would give the TM and lawyers a heads up of what might be coming their way.

Actually I can, Ive been on may forums since day one with many people who have actually been to the scene. Her visit and finding are only symbolic, and only symbolic in the small audience in the US unfortunately. Lets hope she has other findings she can share. Id like to know what she discovered regarding a possible route that Smith man took, andwhere she thinks a body couldnt have been kept until it was moved again, if that is you beleive this theory.



Would just like to add that it concerns me greatly that Pat appears to be rather selective with the comments she allows on her blog posts.

david_uk wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

david_uk wrote:While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

I don't think you can really compare forumers discussing these matters with actually being out there and seeing the lie of the land first hand. If nothing else, the symbolic importance of Pat going from US to PdL to check out the scene when the Tapas bunch would not make the short flight from UK at the request of the police in an investigation, speaks volumes. Don't forget, she has a lawsuit against the mc's pending, so I would suggest Pat will be very circumspect about what she shares at this stage. She would be VERY unwise to make many of her findings public at this stage. Not least because it would give the TM and lawyers a heads up of what might be coming their way.

Actually I can, Ive been on may forums since day one with many people who have actually been to the scene. Her visit and finding are only symbolic, and only symbolic in the small audience in the US unfortunately. Lets hope she has other findings she can share. Id like to know what she discovered regarding a possible route that Smith man took, andwhere she thinks a body couldnt have been kept until it was moved again, if that is you beleive this theory.



Would just like to add that it concerns me greatly that Pat appears to be rather selective with the comments she allows on her blog posts.

Have you tried to share a less than complimentary comment otherwise how can you say this this? Pat Brown is well known in the US so she will get more than a "small audience" over there. That is unless Carter-Ruck have longer arms than I thought.

Gillyspot wrote:

david_uk wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

david_uk wrote:While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

I don't think you can really compare forumers discussing these matters with actually being out there and seeing the lie of the land first hand. If nothing else, the symbolic importance of Pat going from US to PdL to check out the scene when the Tapas bunch would not make the short flight from UK at the request of the police in an investigation, speaks volumes. Don't forget, she has a lawsuit against the mc's pending, so I would suggest Pat will be very circumspect about what she shares at this stage. She would be VERY unwise to make many of her findings public at this stage. Not least because it would give the TM and lawyers a heads up of what might be coming their way.

Actually I can, Ive been on may forums since day one with many people who have actually been to the scene. Her visit and finding are only symbolic, and only symbolic in the small audience in the US unfortunately. Lets hope she has other findings she can share. Id like to know what she discovered regarding a possible route that Smith man took, andwhere she thinks a body couldnt have been kept until it was moved again, if that is you beleive this theory.



Would just like to add that it concerns me greatly that Pat appears to be rather selective with the comments she allows on her blog posts.

Have you tried to share a less than complimentary comment otherwise how can you say this this? Pat Brown is well known in the US so she will get more than a "small audience" over there. That is unless Carter-Ruck have longer arms than I thought.

I think that the McCann case is well known all over the world. Two dodgy Brits on Oprah's sofa may not have caused much of fuss but a well known American profiler exposing the Maddie McCann case is rather different.

david_uk wrote:While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

While you may know everything david, don`t forget there are many new visitors to the forum and to the case who need to be informed. Besides, Pat`s training and expertise shows the need to go everything with precision and thoroughness - just because you think its `old hat` doesn`t mean its not of real value. Every tiny morsal of this case needs revisiting over and over by as many different people as possible with all their varying perspectives. Surely, Pat Brown`s work should be applauded not diminished by statements like `There is nothing new here` - it is new to a lot of people.

Woofer wrote:

david_uk wrote:While I appreciate Pats efforts and blogging. I think we can all safely say that over the last 5yrs forum posters have already covered this ground, investigated and come the same conclusions. There is nothing new here. I had hoped PAt would have some new info or ideas?. Perhaps she is getting to them......we wait and see

While you may know everything david, don`t forget there are many new visitors to the forum and to the case who need to be informed. Besides, Pat`s training and expertise shows the need to go everything with precision and thoroughness - just because you think its `old hat` doesn`t mean its not of real value. Every tiny morsal of this case needs revisiting over and over by as many different people as possible with all their varying perspectives. Surely, Pat Brown`s work should be applauded not diminished by statements like `There is nothing new here` - it is new to a lot of people.

Yes! And how many times have the bloggers and forum posters been called "Armchair Miss Marples" by the McCann followers? The thing that is really frightening for the McCann cult is that Pat gives credibility to theories and analysis of the bloggers and posters.

wow! people here like to turn on anyone who doesnt `go with the flow!`. Regardless of how new a person is to the case, Pats conclusions are not new. Also , America is a big place, she simply isnt as high profile ans famous as people seem to believe. She to be applauded for what she is trying to do, but so far she has bought nothing new to the table......lets hope there is more to come

Cheshire Cat wrote:

Yes! And how many times have the bloggers and forum posters been called "Armchair Miss Marples" by the McCann followers? The thing that is really frightening for the McCann cult is that Pat gives credibility to theories and analysis of the bloggers and posters.

Don't mean to be frivolous but I'd love to read different scenarios in which Miss Marple, Hercule Poirot, Montalban et al might solve this mystery, and more importantly bring justice to those who are guilty.

david_uk wrote:wow! people here like to turn on anyone who doesnt `go with the flow!`. Regardless of how new a person is to the case, Pats conclusions are not new. Also , America is a big place, she simply isnt as high profile ans famous as people seem to believe. She to be applauded for what she is trying to do, but so far she has bought nothing new to the table......lets hope there is more to come

There's no need for the amateur dramatics. People on here generally subscribe to the view that new members of this forum appreciate the insight provided despite the fact many experienced students of the case may have known about this information for some time .

The other issue regarding the Jane Tanner sighting specifcally is, of course, what you expect Pat (or anyone else) to be able to tell you that you didn't already know?

Given she hasn't spoken to any of the witnesses and is only able to draw conclusions solely from the location itself, the idea that you think she's able to produce a magic bullet simply by having walked on that street is both fanciful and unrealistic.

Unless of course you wish her to fail and actively seek to criticise her every move as some on "other forums" appear intent on doing.

For me i'd like to wait and see her final work as an overall piece and then draw conclusions from that, rather than sniping from the wings on the titbits she has so far released.

The only thing I'm disappointed in Pat's visit is that the spineless UK media won't cover her trip. Scoop for Sunday Sun!

She has her own case to consider and Amazon may regret caving in to threats. She spent her own money and obviously gathered more details from Tony and Dr Amaral. I really struggle to see how TB and GA are facing the action because they have plenty of 'evidence' (yes, I know it's all circumstancial) but how can tm prove abduction?

Anyway, just maybe someone will crack, because of all this added action currently. I wouldn't want to be one of the holidaymakers awaiting that knock on the door. Still living in hope!

jay2001 wrote:The only thing I'm disappointed in Pat's visit is that the spineless UK media won't cover her trip. Scoop for Sunday Sun!

She has her own case to consider and Amazon may regret caving in to threats. She spent her own money and obviously gathered more details from Tony and Dr Amaral. I really struggle to see how TB and GA are facing the action because they have plenty of 'evidence' (yes, I know it's all circumstancial) but how can tm prove abduction?

Anyway, just maybe someone will crack, because of all this added action currently. I wouldn't want to be one of the holidaymakers awaiting that knock on the door. Still living in hope!

The press are stocking the store imo. It wouldn't make sense to publish anything but good things about TM as and when it is drip-fed from the PR bloke (given the LI debacle). The SY review hasn't been concluded yet. When that happens (and I happen to believe it won't be a complete whitewash), the press will have their front page for a long time. There are the forthcoming libel cases and the book launch. I reckon it will be a few months before the press go to town on the case. There is also the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic games coming up, along with the banking crisis, the Arab spring, the Falklands, Greece etc. Guaranteed front page coverage. Just my opinion.

aquila wrote:

jay2001 wrote:The only thing I'm disappointed in Pat's visit is that the spineless UK media won't cover her trip. Scoop for Sunday Sun!

She has her own case to consider and Amazon may regret caving in to threats. She spent her own money and obviously gathered more details from Tony and Dr Amaral. I really struggle to see how TB and GA are facing the action because they have plenty of 'evidence' (yes, I know it's all circumstancial) but how can tm prove abduction?

Anyway, just maybe someone will crack, because of all this added action currently. I wouldn't want to be one of the holidaymakers awaiting that knock on the door. Still living in hope!

The press are stocking the store imo. It wouldn't make sense to publish anything but good things about TM as and when it is drip-fed from the PR bloke (given the LI debacle). The SY review hasn't been concluded yet. When that happens (and I happen to believe it won't be a complete whitewash), the press will have their front page for a long time. There are the forthcoming libel cases and the book launch. I reckon it will be a few months before the press go to town on the case. There is also the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic games coming up, along with the banking crisis, the Arab spring, the Falklands, Greece etc. Guaranteed front page coverage. Just my opinion.

Could even be saved to bury bad news on the financial front for instance. Been done before! Headlines re McCann and on page 6 taxs tripled.....

I concur with Me, if it was not for this site and people blogging I would have been as pig ignorant as the rest. I don`t count myself as being stupid, just busy doing something else.

Sorry tried to edit, but it was somehow difficult for me to do that.

tigger wrote:

aquila wrote:

jay2001 wrote:The only thing I'm disappointed in Pat's visit is that the spineless UK media won't cover her trip. Scoop for Sunday Sun!

She has her own case to consider and Amazon may regret caving in to threats. She spent her own money and obviously gathered more details from Tony and Dr Amaral. I really struggle to see how TB and GA are facing the action because they have plenty of 'evidence' (yes, I know it's all circumstancial) but how can tm prove abduction?

Anyway, just maybe someone will crack, because of all this added action currently. I wouldn't want to be one of the holidaymakers awaiting that knock on the door. Still living in hope!

The press are stocking the store imo. It wouldn't make sense to publish anything but good things about TM as and when it is drip-fed from the PR bloke (given the LI debacle). The SY review hasn't been concluded yet. When that happens (and I happen to believe it won't be a complete whitewash), the press will have their front page for a long time. There are the forthcoming libel cases and the book launch. I reckon it will be a few months before the press go to town on the case. There is also the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic games coming up, along with the banking crisis, the Arab spring, the Falklands, Greece etc. Guaranteed front page coverage. Just my opinion.

Could even be saved to bury bad news on the financial front for instance. Been done before! Headlines re McCann and on page 6 taxs tripled.....

You swim with crocodiles if you attempt to manipulate the press. IMO, TM have bitten the wrong croc.

I have hopes that Murdoch & his papers have decided to drop the McCann story. The last few McCann pr statements (sorry articles) haven't been covered by any of them. I doubt he will go so far as to be critical but it is interesting his non regurgitating of the latest rubbish (sorry information) from Team McCann.

Fingers xed everyone

Me wrote:

david_uk wrote:wow! people here like to turn on anyone who doesnt `go with the flow!`. Regardless of how new a person is to the case, Pats conclusions are not new. Also , America is a big place, she simply isnt as high profile ans famous as people seem to believe. She to be applauded for what she is trying to do, but so far she has bought nothing new to the table......lets hope there is more to come

There's no need for the amateur dramatics. People on here generally subscribe to the view that new members of this forum appreciate the insight provided despite the fact many experienced students of the case may have known about this information for some time .

The other issue regarding the Jane Tanner sighting specifcally is, of course, what you expect Pat (or anyone else) to be able to tell you that you didn't already know?

Given she hasn't spoken to any of the witnesses and is only able to draw conclusions solely from the location itself, the idea that you think she's able to produce a magic bullet simply by having walked on that street is both fanciful and unrealistic.

Unless of course you wish her to fail and actively seek to criticise her every move as some on "other forums" appear intent on doing.

For me i'd like to wait and see her final work as an overall piece and then draw conclusions from that, rather than sniping from the wings on the titbits she has so far released.

More seriously now, I agree with you Me. I don't know what some people were expecting from Pat's trip but a week is very short and we are talking about a possible crime scene five years after the event with no witnesses to interview. Also if she has managed to discover anything significant and new, she wouldn't be publishing it on her blog for the whole world to see for obvious reasons. We are all trying to get to the truth by studying whatever evidence available, trying to determine what is reliable and what is mere hearsay or worse deliberate fabrication by TM. And I support any efforts made in good faith, by a professional or otherwise, and publicity is (mostly) good for any campaign, as TM would tell you.