Monday, February 13, 2012

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



“Martha? I’m stepping out on the balcony for a smoke. Hey, Martha, come here! What the hell is that man doing at that window? You see right there? He’s busting in the window? Martha, go call the police! Hey, he’s crawling in flat….must be planning to steal…oh, my god, Martha! Tell the police he’s carrying out a child! I’m running downstairs! Maybe I can stop him!”



(The above is an imagined scenario for those who are pretended to not understand this...clearly I am just trying to make a point).



Yes, you are looking at Apartment 5A, the very apartment the McCanns were renting on May 3rd, 2007. The time is 10 pm on February 12, 2012. The photo was taken from the third floor of the building across the street. There was some shrubbery along the left wall of the parking lot that has been removed but the view of the McCanns door and window would not have been obscured (I must add since I have been rightly corrected and I have doublechecked the photos at that time, there are trees also lining the back side on the street, it is difficult to say today if one is high up looking down from one balcony or the other, who can see the window). My purpose of this photo was to show that the window and door of 5A was not a location that was as hidden from view as one might think.



Predators who crawl in and out windows tend to choose windows that look out on dark empty spaces or are nowhere near other buildings. For example, a predator might break in on the back side of an apartment building that has no lights and nothing but a deserted lot behind. A predator might crawl in the back window of an isolated house. But the 5A window was on a corner with traffic going by, on a parking lot which people are driving in and out of, under other apartment windows, across from other apartments and next to other apartments. Partially obscured from some angles, the predator knows the window is not obscured at other angles. He may not know exactly who can see him and who can't. For example, there is a break in the trees where the drive comes into the parking lot and through which the window can be seen. Just knowning that there is an apartment building looming over one's crime area for people to look down on you (either breaking in or out or leaving the area with a child) would be unnerving. Any predator would be smarter going in the back door which is far easier to slip in and out of and not be seen.



The lights on the buildings and in the streets turn the building into a veritable fishbowl (some claim massive lighting improvement since that day but I have heard that it has not changed much). What idiot would think breaking in the window at Apartment 5A or carrying a child out of that window or even the door next to it would be a terribly bright idea? One thing kidnappers know is there are enough human fish in the sea that one doesn’t have to abduct someone under such risky conditions.



There are those who note the style of lamps in town have changed (from globe-shaped to the more boxy style now seen) and there are a couple of added lights to the McCann building. True, but this does not mean that the location was dark and dismal and a predator would be able to skulk around unseen. From my third floor apartment, I can clearly see the windows in the building on the other side of the road from the McCanns and it has no added lights at all. It is not clear that the change of street lamp has significantly increased lighting (some say it has and some say it hasn't - I haven't found statistics on this) but, suffice it to say, if it was good enough light for Jane Tanner to see a man carrying a little child off at a distance and be able to describe his clothes and hers, then it is possible for many others to see this man as well. He would know this and choosing so public a location to abduct a child would be unusual. Finally, it was a full moon night, so the lighting may have been even better than normal (though not necessarily that early, but a predator may not be thinking of that because the night before moonrise was earlier and we don´t even know if he might have not gotten an opportunity - if he did - until two hours later.



The next picture shows the front side of the apartment building with close-up of the window of Apartment 5A. I am standing in the doorway. Can you see how bright it is at night? (Again that light may be deceptive as it was added , but you can see how exposed the window is on a path people are coming out of their apartments on and at the end of that wall is the entrance from the parking lot, not to mention a full moon shining down on white buildings and light-colored walks). What would Mr. Predator do if he crawled out of the window with a child to find a car pulling in to park right there in the lot? He would be trapped. He still has to walk down that little path, turn right out the opening into the parking lot, come back down along the wall, then cross the parking lot, go out of the parking lot, turn right and walk down to the corner and cross the street - where Jane Tanner supposedly saw him.



It is also worth noting that there is a lack of proper photos and videos from that night or even the next, so we don't know the exact conditions. Furthermore, we cannot trust what photos and videos show us because they can be brightened or darkened according to what the presented of these evidences want the audience to think. Supporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner´s sighting area to be brightened and the window darkened. Nonsupporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner's sighting area to be pitch black and the window sitting in a spotlight. So, we likely will have difficulty in knowning the reality. However, and again, the predator does what is wisest and I still have to say that the front of 5A is not the choice a predator should make when the back door, the supposedly open sliding back door, exists and cuts down on ones visibility leaving the residence and escaping from the area.











This picture shows the corner where Jane Tanner sees a man cross the street coming from the apartment, child in his outstretched hands. If you were an abductor, would you be comfortable choosing to walk out in the open, across the well-light street with three people on it? Would you at least think walking the other direction hugging the wall might be a bit smarter, maybe cut down your chances of being seen? (The abuctor MAY have seen just seen the backs of Gerry and Jez as he peeped around the corner and stepped out just as Jane came out of the Tapas door and up the street getting caught in her sight line.) But walking the other direction is much safer and smarter unless one has no choice).






Robert Murat, the only other Arguido (suspect) in the case, lived on a couple blocks down the way in the direction Jane Tanner claimed the man carrying a child was walking. But, Robert Murat was a known individual in town and many people in Praia da Luz own places here or rent for a long period of time and return year after year. Would someone who knows people might recognize him walk down well-lit streets - his face totally exposed – straight to his own house? He would have to have an IQ far below 70 to think this would be clever.










If anyone took a child from the apartment, it would be smarter to walk the opposite way of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen. Here you can see the wall I just mentioned that he could walk very close to and be out of sight of anyone looking down from the tall apartment building across the street. Even more intelligent would be for an abductor to leave the back of the apartment by the sliding glass doors and hurry down the enclosed path which leads up to the parking area at the front of the apartment and go out at the end of the street and onward to the darker end of the road. It is exactly this path that leads to the Smith sighting.



Praia da Luz is a very cozy, brightly lit, off-the-main road very small and charming resort town. No sex ring is going to choose this location to target children. A child sex predator might lurk about here but he would be wiser abducting a child from the outskirts of the town or in pretty much any other nearby village. There are some darker side streets further to the edge of the town that a predator or someone carrying a child would be a bit less visible . Apartment 5A would rank pretty much at the bottom of any abductor’s list of places to grab a kid. The only reason someone would remove a child from 5A would be of necessity. Then he would never take the route Jane Tanner claimed she saw the man carrying a child.



More on the most likely route one would take to carry Madeleine from Apartment 5A in my next blog.




Criminal Profiler Pat Brown



47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat, welcome to Portugal! I wish you a pleasant stay (despite the cold, brrrr...) and lots of success with your work.
Not that it matters much, but the street lights in Luz were changed after 2007, they are much brighter and strong now. At the time of the events they were less intense, it seems (I have not been there myself). Just wanted to let you know about it, if you are not aware of this alredy, I bet it will be used by those who will do everything to discredit and challenge your investigation.
Looking forward to read more from your investigation,

THANK YOU,

Roseanne

Anonymous said...

Sorry, forgot to add that if the "abductor" or any child predatory sex ring would be on the hunt for children in Luz they did not need to take all those stupid risks in targeting Madeleine and taking her, just across the road ( I believe close to the exact spot where Gerry McCann claims he and Wilkins were chatting while Tanner was going up the road, but amazingly somehow managed not to be seen by either of the men, and at the same time the "abductor" was crossing the road, at that spot there is a kindergarten school. Plenty of children to choose from! It would only take a moment of distraction of the staff during recess, lots of children playing and running around, confusion, etc., how easy would it be to alure one away from the rest of the group...?

Anonymous said...

Nice work Pat. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts as you look into this further.

You do know that the pro-McCann lobby think that you have no credentials, you're a self-appointed profiler, your opinions are invalid and you are merely attempting to further your own image/career by exploiting Madeleine, don't you? ;-)

Fortunately those of us with an IQ higher than our age realise the importance of the work you're doing. Keep it up, there are many that support you.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat!

Some argue that you as an American do not have any interest in the case as it involved no American(s) and did not occur in the US.

I beg to differ: is it not so that Federal legislation would be involved because of the dissemination of information on national tv (Oprah!) and involving the FBI in producing the age progression pictures? And this apparently not for the sole purpose of finding Madeleine but also of collecting cash from unsuspecting US citizens?

Is there a US lawyer in the house, who could shed some light on this?

Keep up the good works!

Portia

SteelMagnolia said...

I am not pro or anti, I am for Justice, something England appears to lack when it comes to children.

The ONLY people who have explopited Madeleine and continue to do so are her own grandparents ,parents and family.

Pat Brown you are one gutsy lady .xx

Anonymous said...

I have seen images of what look like Martin Grime and one of his springer cadaver dogs at the Lisa Irwin home when they picked up cadaver, can you confirm it was him .

Anonymous said...

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/martin-smith-recognizes-gerry-mccann.html

Video : Martin Smiths recognizes the abductor as Gerald McCann

viv said...

UK media state Tanner & Smith sightings are uncannily similar or words that effect. That is strange, Jane eventually comes up with a description on Panorama in Nov 2007 where she is now anxious to stress it was not Murat and seems determined to emphasise he was nothing like Gerry McCann. He has shrunk now to 5'7" and he has "masses of hair long in the neck" clearly nothing like Gerry McCann short back and sides.

When Gerry McCann was questioned by reporters at a hearing against Amaral he was asked what evidence there was of abduction, he cited Jane Tanner and the sighting of Martin Smith, which has caused me to wonder, did he arrange that sighting because PJ would not believe Jane Tanner and release any details of a supposed abduction. It seems very odd he was still in the resort for some days but it took Martin Smith a further two weeks at home to realise what he had apparently seen.

If you thought you were smart and manipulative and desperately needed to convince both the police and the media/public that Maddie was abducted, not dead, you may think like I believe McCann did. Let us create some sightings of an abductor. True he cannot be a smart abductor who does not get seen or who has a car, we have to say he was seen so that people begin to believe he actually existed.

Of course it also possible Martin Smith really did see Gerry McCann but I wonder why he mentioned it. When Kate was asked to namea reliable report she said well there was a sighting in Amsterdam I think, they have some friends there. So strange out of all these credible leads those naughty cops just plain ignored that was all she could think of to say.

Keep up the good work, you are driving the trolls crazy!

xx

Anonymous said...

I knew you would see this clear as water as soon as you got there.

There are a few places of interest: the top of big cliff in Praia da Luz, there is golf field too. There a mark point that you can see from the sea. Has a shape of a pyramid cut in the top.

Funny is that this place in the top of the cliff (that cliff!!!) can be reached from above but can also be reached by land sea). There a pattern not a very clear one but is a way that takes you to the top.... I wonder if any person of interest may use it.

Take care!

Alexandra

Anonymous said...

Very interesting!

I am looking forward to your next blog.....and seeing where the likely route of an abductor/magician will take you....

Keep up the good work Pat.

Anonymous said...

Well done Pat you and Goncalo are a credit to justice I wish you both success in the fight against greed,lies, fraud and the possible death of Madeleine x x

Anonymous said...

When it's no hope. When a group of criminals go free in the day light. When the parents of abused and killed child made their dirty money making up and publishing disgusting stories to discredit the truth ... . Just comes Pat Brown. THANK YOU, DEAR PAT! GOD BLESS YOU GIRL FOR YOUR BUSINESS! WE WISH YOU ALL THE SUCCESS! Say Hallo to Goncalo Amaral and sunny Portugal.
Justice for little Madeleine!

su said...

Having followed this case for years, a lot of it was words but not experiential understanding.

Seeing these images and asking the question which way would you as the abductor walk holding a drugged child?

The very first blog post Pat Brown puts out and I have goose bumps.

And Steel Magnolia whoever you are - could be a collective - your tenacity and thoroughness are appreciated as well.

But for Pat to go there and make it known she is going to be there - talk about being a red rag to the bull.

Anonymous said...

The lighting has changed enormously round this complex Pat; there was also a number of trees which have been removed. The environment is not what it was in May 2007.

Anonymous said...

Pat, excellent observations!

Pat, Gerry Mccann has stated that you can easily raise the shutters from the outside without noise or damage. Can you try this and see how far up you can lift them? And if he said he tried this why was he quoted as saying they were broken or jemmied if it was that easy to do it.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat. I hope you find new leads in this case. How the McCanns gor away with child neglect and this fund charade, I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Will be a great idea if you talk with priest Pacheco. At least, we can understand better who delivered the keys of the church to the Mccann's and what was the real use of the church. The religion was there to mask other things. That was my feeling since the beginning.

Anonymous said...

hello pat is kate out there helping to look for madeleine with you,or maybe someone from the immeadiate family

Gambler said...

Thanks for the update and look forward to your next blog.

@kdreeves1 said...

Re: why someone would chose to abduct a child from this resort town rather than a nearby village, or some other area...What if a certain type of child was being sought, of a certain look, hair color, etc? Might he look at a child from out of town for a reason? [I'm not very familiar with Portugal or what the general look of the residents tends towards--excuse my question if it comes across as ignorant!]

@kdreeves1 said...

In regard to why someone might take the risk of abducting a child in a busy resort town, instead of a nearby village, or elsewhere that might seem more logical--what if the abductor was looking for a certain type of child, perhaps with a particular physical characteristics?

Anonymous said...

well done pat,very enlightning photos,but be on your guard and be like dad and keep mum if you find out any more interesting things,wouldnt do to throw all of your eggs out of the basket;-)

Anonymous said...

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2012/02/mccaan-forewarned-is-forearmed-lets-set.html

The setting of an abduction , they lucked out the maid noticed the sleeping arrangements. Not quite what the McCanns would have us believe.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat! Aren't you lucky? Two well-known British mediums has been doing some field work for you. Check this out in case you have not done so already. They are in PdL right now...

http://sic.sapo.pt/programas/ateaverdade/article1342958.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUpzQHwfR30

SteelMagnolia said...

Pat, Danny Collins wrote a book and he too spoke with locals who confirmed to him Madeleine used to run off...have you heard this also ? Here also in this article locals say the same thing.

http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com/2012/02/mccann-locals-say.html

Picking Oranges said...

Hi Pat,

This makes such interesting reading. So many things have never added up with this case. I will continue to read your blog and look forward to the updates.
Justice needs to be done for such an innocent young girl who was failed by those who were supposed to be caring for her.
Take care.
X

Fernis said...

Thanks Pat for trying to demonstrate the obvious: there was no abduction!
Rather, it seems that a cadaver was sntched out of that apartment by calous criminals (you know who I mean)and so well hidden, or turned into smoke, that it will be impossible, or near impossible) to discover.

Anonymous said...

http://sojo-adventures.tripod.com/id8.html

This link has images that show in daylight the location. Mine were on Pamalam. The lighting in May at 8.30 - 9.15 p.m. would be in shadow, but still on my images I can see from the fronds of the trees then the third floor where Pat was. It looks directly down to this location as they all do. I told police then to search all the apartments high up on this side and the kindergarten too. Nothing has changed in terms of distance, the pavement has not changed, nor the distance, nor the elevated views in reverse of what Jane Tanner claimed in her inconsistencies.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat, Keep up the good work!

I have a theory which rather goes against your belief that the 'abductor' would keep to the wall.

I proposed that the 'abductor', having parked and waited in a car which he had parked in the car park opposite the entrance to Mark Warner; went into appartment 5a via the sliding glass doors when he though the coast was clear.

When he heard Gerry coming to check he hid until Gerry went out. He then picked up Madeleine and went out of the appartment via the front door and then encountered Jane Tanner. Jane Tanner said that she looked back after turning the corner and he was still walking in the direction of the Murat's house.

I wondered if the 'abductor' went into the car park of the second block of appartments on the left of your daytime picture and made his way back to the car by a path between the appartment buildings.

I recall that a family called Carpenter had dinner in the Tapas at around the same time as the Mccanns but left about 8.30pm. They said that they crossed the road opposite the entrance into the car park and and then went 'around the semi-circular path' back to their appartment which overlooked the Murat villa garden.

I wondered what you think of this theory and if it is, in fact, possible to get through from one block to the other via a path.

Look forward to reading your next blog.

Anonymous said...

Pat, hope you visit the place which looks like a grave with a cross on top which I discovered in PDL in October 2010.
It's on the way to the obelisc above a big plateau from where you can look over PDL.

Anonymous said...

Hello Ms.Brown.

Have been following your blog.
I am just a bystander,I have no idea of course of what happened on that fateful night..
However it is clear that even for those amongst us who know nothing about criminal profiling that someone had a key to enter that condo that evening,whoever took that child would guard against themself being caught.

In my opinion it was a female,a female who had access to a spare key, and if caught with the child would have an excuse for having her in her company....
Any child waking would scream the place down if they woke in the arms of a stranger especially if that stranger was a male.

If the child had been being watched for several days then the abductor would know (as is fact) the parents were likely to turn up at any moment,to check... No abductor would take that risk!...

I think you should be looking elsewhere IE: who had access to children, who if found in their company between the condo and the delivery point would not be questioned?

Then I have to ask "what parent would cover up the death of their child to protect a friend"?

I have heard about the potential of chloroform.. IMO this was not an option,,, to remove a sedated child between such a maze of backstreets and taking the risk of being caught is too much to ask anyone to comprehend,and for any abductor too great a risk.

The only possible solution to this case that makes any sense was that Madeleine Mc'cann was removed by a female who had a tale all ready to spin if confronted that evening.

I would welcome your comments on this.

Anonymous said...

Jane saw a man holding who she thought was Madeleine. However, the bed that Madeleine was in had the head of the bed to the right, hence when lifting her out of the bed she would have had her head to the right side of the man. However, Jane describes a man carrying a child lying the other way around. If she was awake she'd have made a heck of a fuss according to Gerry's sister. If asleep, at what point in the quick getaway did he stop, turn her round, pick her up again and leave the apartment?

A vital and easy point to be cleared up is those bedroom window shutters. The occupants prior to the McCann family say in their police interview that those shutters made a loud noise when being opened. I believe those type of blinds are impossible to open from the outside and the roller case at the top will jam them quickly and then they will be broken. The forensic lady taking prints the next day on a photo also reveal the shutters were not broken.

Lastly the only way i can see this being an abduction is if there were no visual checks that night. And if the sighting by Jane was nothing to do with Madeleine. Madeleine could have been taken a lot earlier and they wouldn't have known when. Then panic ensues and they need to get the police to move quickly as they don't know how long ago she went. People say and do things in times of great panic to make other people react in the way they want them too. Scream abduction and say things to make it more believable (even if that is what really happened) to get the police to hurry and find her. Then there is the dogs and their findings. Only 2 real options here as the dogs alerted in so many areas and to suggest they were wrong in ALL of those areas isn't realistic. The 2 options are either there was a death in that apartment. OR evidence (cadaverine) was planted by someone else.

Good luck Pat, I hope the UK media report your visit, after all it keeps it in the public eye which can only be a good thing.

These are just my personal opinions and thoughts on a very baffling and sad case.

Anonymous said...

previous comment says the lighting is different and trees have been cut down - so from that we can infer that things are clearer today than in 2007, so why the hell would the parents insist that they could see the kids bedroom [even tho it was at the far side of the building to the Tapas bar]
no wonder they would prefer us to think it was neglect that allowed Madeleine to disappear and not something else. Oh and the Mother is writing a new book more lies to add to the lies in the first book. Thank God all British parents are not like these two

Anonymous said...

anonymous 8 31
the carpenters did not leave at 8 30 but between 9 15 and 9 30 and the wife is said to have heard someone call madeleine madeleine, now who else apart from a searxher would do that, pls get your facts right and stop trying to confuse pat thanks so much

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat what I find strange is the CATS file on McCann. I wonder if the fridge McCann replaced can be looked into ? Or is this all 'extras ' to draw away from the simple fact that Madeleine died from an accident in the apartment ? Good work Pat and thankyou. Justice for little Madeleine.

Anonymous said...

The lighting and the trees that have altered are at the front of the apartment, not the side that faces the pool and the restaurnat. This was the side that I believe Pat was duscussing. The difference is very clearly visible on Google Earth. The street lighting has been upgraded and a large spotlight type of thing has been put on the wall right outside the front of 5a. Goncalo Amaral himself thought the lighting so poor that Jane Tanner could not possibly have seen the man carrying a child with any clarity. We can't have it both ways - either the lighting was poor or it wasn't. And the trees have definitely been removed.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Carpenter and his wife, and his two children all left at 9.15 as per witness statement. He went out of reception seen by all the Tapas members present as he had coffee with Gerry as Jane says. He then went out to negotiate the crossing of the road by the gates of 5A as he says and in illuminated light of course, he could not cross, or they could not due to the known parked cars of two workers abutted to each other on this side. Now at this time there is the situation of others using this road to come down to the Luz Tavern as we did. To go to the bars the taxi drivers use the back way to it and not the main road from Faro. Here at the time of other tourists coming and going is the uncertain sporadic visits of persons with no set timings. At the time Stephen Carpenter carries his child 'exactly' as Jane describes him doing and he does nightly on this journey is the 'abductor'. Not kidnapper, but the use of the word 'abductor' as an adult act of taking as in domestic situations of child abduction. But later on the use of abduction as a word is one that cannot have a monetary aspect as a ransom kidnap of a child would have. In short the word 'kidnap' and awaited ransom demand might be more sensible if a person had not used the very doors of the patio that were visible to anyone of entering and leaving from the road and the Warner pool area. No key was needed. The two parked cars are there in three statements,but never in Jane Tanner's embellishments of the 'man' and the object ' a female child' being carried that is sleeping. Thus, in closing the man carrying this child at 9.15 - 9.20 up to his own Warner complex that just happens to be on the running routes, and just happens to be where Mrs Murat and Robert lives is entirely coincidental. His wife has to be in front with the buggy and the baby, as he follows up after her. The only place Jane could have seen Mr and Mrs Carpenter is exiting the reception as she would and then following both Gerry and he and his family as they got up. Quite why she would do this is not evaluated. I say this as Matt Oldfield had just come back, so why so soon? What motivated Jane Tanner to get up as the starters were there and rapidly consumed? What made Kate say of the televised football match final that made her comment of 'Gerry was watching the footie'? It shows that curiosity was at work or she wanted to ask to follow the Carpenter family and Gerry out to the location after they had departed by minutes. She could have then seen the turn Mr Carpenter made by going to the other side of the road, if she did, and there she would see Mr Carpenter visibly from this side emerge from the parked cars at the top of the road, if she did. If she did then Gerry and Jeremy were filling the pavement near the alley, as actually at the lane where the gates to 5B , 5C, 5D and 4 as units were. This is the only place she could have seen the performances that intermingled with the times stated.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the light and the activities on the street around the 5a, for May 3 2007, PJ asked ( was reported on the press) the satellite views of the street from NASA. At the time was reported that such images didn't exist because the satellites were facing Morroccos. I had always the impression that PJ was not buying such excuse. Somebody could acted at an high stage to get those images prevented from PJ. Since you are doing that exercise with lights around the flat, will be very interesting to know what really happen to the satellite images. Since you live in USA and was used with high crimes, maybe you can sort out that information. This case is full of strange coincidences and what is very suspicious is every time the police wants to touch a crucial information to help solving the case, a coincidence happen to prevent the police to access that information. Fall on that, the messages and calls made from the mobile phones of the Tapas 9 in the crucial hours/ days,the Credit Cards and the Medical records. Why in a so sensitive case, where the life of a child could be under risk, the police was prevented to access the mobiles of the people who were with child? And who believes, the Mccann's as Drs, travelled with 3 kids without Credit Cards and without any type of painkiller or fever controller? I'm a mother and the first think I pack on my luggage is the credit card and some basic medicines to deal with an emergency. With a child, emergencies could happen at any time and all parents know how to manage a syrup to control the fever or relieve the pain, until a proper evaluation of the situation could be seen. I have few friends who are Drs and they are the first ones saying they advise all parents, since the child was born, to take and have at home this basic medicines. The McCann's had another coincidental exception.
What Kate said about coincidences? One...two, after... No more coincidences.

castafiore said...

On the page nr 2951 in the volume 11 of the police files, it is confirmed that it is possible to raise that shutter from outside.
It has been stated by the inspectors Ramos and Ricardo... And Mr Gonçalo Amaral has been informed of that fact by a written letter.

I guess that Mr Amaral would have known as well that there was no spotlight in the parking area behind the flat 5A on the 3rd of May 07.
Why then, did he publish a photograph of this area in his book, with enhanced lighting, supposed to "prove" that, in these conditions, Jane would have noticed that the shutter was raised when she went back to her own flat that night?

Anonymous said...

Nothing here proves anything,apart from how an intelligent person think.obviously not intelligent which rules out the McCann s as making it up in your line of thinking cause they are very intelligent are they not. This leads me to see only one possibility and I'm not a criminal profiler. Madeleine wondered of and they presume its an abduction because they feel so guilty for leaving the door open and allowing this to happen. However the 2 million euro's allows me to see you disdained interest in this case and the cost of flying to Portugal to some how shock the world with your findings.

Anonymous said...

One has to wonder...what was going on in Morocco at the time that was SO IMPORTANT that required ALL satelites to be pointed in that direction...? Not one lousy little satelite left facing our way (Algarve)?!
Your guess is as good as mine...

Anonymous said...

CASTAFIORE, darling, as we say in portuguese "cantas bem, mas não me alegras", (you sing well but you don't make my joy, literal translation, meaning you don't convince me)!
So, the lights back in May 2007 were so weak that poor Tanner would not be able to see the shutters up...ah, but still strong enough to let her spot out the pattern details in the child's pijammas and their colour, and at a good distance, with a moving subject!

Tintin et Milou

Anonymous said...

Comment at February 15, 2012 1:34 PM

I think there is also a deposition from a worker of the Millenium restaurant that says he too heard the commotion much earlier that 10pm. It's in the police files, I suppose. More that one person mentioned some sort of calling/search for a child long before the "official" time of 10pm, but at around 9:"5/9:30pm. And, it seems Madeleine used to ran off easily and hide for fun, it was reported that on a previous night she ran off and hid for a good half-an-hour before bed time.

And, what to make of Kate's remark that she KNEW Madeleine could not have run-off (when she found her missing)? HOW, WHAT made her so sure of it, considering that the patio doors were UNLOCKED? I can only think of one hypothesis...HEAVY SEDATION!

Anonymous said...

anonymous 3 42am

they did have credit cards and medicines, its in the files

what makes some think they didnt is because the pj was sent a credit reference report and they were not on that particular record, besides they paid for their hire car by credit card

Anonymous said...

@Tintin et Milou.

I don't try to convince you nor anybody else. I only remind a piece of the PJ files proving that this shutter can be opened from outside (and stay open).

If we honestly tend to find the truth here, and not just try to sustain our feelings, impressions, etc., we cannot sort out the facts that confirm our feelings and forget the others.

Another piece of the PJ files is this photograph taken by police, outside of the front door of the 5A just after the disappearing, showing clearly that this place was completely in the dark.
How clear was it at the crossing where Jane says having seen this man? I don't know. How do you know?

Anonymous said...

"How clear was it at the crossing where Jane says having seen this man? I don't know. How do you know?"

NOT clear at all, in fact the lightbulbs in 2007 were weak, with a yellowish tone, which distorted somewhat the colors of things. That's why it is so weird that Tanner mamaged to see that the pijamas were pink with a floral pattern.

Anonymous said...

Jane declared that she was not certain about the colour and the floral pattern. Did she tell the truth? I don't know. The distance at which passed this man was at about 5 meters from her, she said... which is a very short distance anyway.

João Barreiras, the man of the PJ who took the first pictures in the 5A, said:

"Referring to the light conditions around the apartment, he says they were very dark, and thinks that even on a bright night there would always be little light around the apartment because of the trees and lack of street lights."