14 February 2012

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown: 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!”

by Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

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. The lights on the buildings and in the streets turn the building into a veritable fish-bowl (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.


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?


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?


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 cosy, 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.


in The Daily Profiler, February 13, 2012

Updated article/photos remain the same as above, on 15.02.2012

“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 double-checked 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 knowing 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 fish-bowl (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-coloured 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. Non-supporters 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 knowing 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 abductor 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 cosy, 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

in The Daily Profiler


15 comments:

  1. In the bottom photo, could you make it clearer if the wall at the right of the front door is blocked off? If it is so, then it makes the way out a virtual cul-de-sac, and the only possible way out is along past the carpark wall (where the skip is parked.)
    Thank you so much for making sense of all the strange directions.Other residents experiences of shutters opening and closing and how it would be possible (or not) to force them open would also be a help.
    And yes, I remember that the only trace on 'the' relevant shutters was just one print of Kate's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for the photos, Pat Brown. But I'm sure that part of the resort was much darker in 2007. We can see it on videos.
    It was not that bright at all.They changed it in 2008, after Amaral's documentary was made.
    I believe The McCanns changed it on order to let "Jane Tanner"see the abductor, on their documentary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. :p HOW DOES THE VIEW FROM ABOVE MAKES JANE TANNER FEEL DOWN BELOW?

    Pat is as brilliant as I thought. Amazing how she come up with an angle - and a critical one at that, no one seemed to have illustrated for us yet. I can't wait for her next dispatch.

    Meanwhile the blackout on her by the Portuguese media goes on. God bless SIC TV for standing up on behalf of article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution!

    But does it matter?
    Money may talk but silence contains all sounds.

    Keep up the good work Pat and stay loose.
    God bless you!

    A. Reader

    ReplyDelete
  4. dosnt the light above the apartments look strangely brighter than the others ????

    ReplyDelete
  5. @4 indeed it does, that spotlight was placed there recently. You have a good eye ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. The lighting that is now over the appartment was not there in May 2007 (see PJ files). Also the trees have been cut down since then.

    Even if this new lighting and lack of tree cover was as it was in 2007 I do not feel that it would prove there was not an abductor as children have been kidnapped all over the world in a well lit public setting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @6 So explain me exactly how would an «abductor» be able to enter the apartment 5A - despite what the McCanns say now in their unreliable and unproven third version, the one created for Kate's sanitized-version-of-the-events book - if every door and window was locked? Or do you really believe the McCanns would leave their three children in an unlocked apartment - that would be gross neglect, wouldn't it? And how would the alleged «abductor» be able to get out carrying Madeleine (as per Jane Tanner X-Ray farcical sighting), without being seen, as Pat points out correctly, by someone who could, let's say, be on one of the over 50 balconies in the opposite block of apartments having a smoke, or without being seen by a passer-by? Oh, but wait! The «abductor» was seen, by the only independent and reliable group of witnesses -the Smith family! Funny they thought the «abductor» was Gerry McCann.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Many thanks for this Pat. It's great to get a really detailed idea of how things look around apartment 5A.

    One other thing that's worth remembering about the 'abductor's' odd getaway route is that, according to the McCanns, he that way only went that way because Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins were standing in the road by the back/patio door through which he got into the apartment and presumably, had they not been there, would also have left.

    So the scenario is supposed to be: ‘abductor’ poised to take Madeleine from her bed when he hears Gerry come in by the patio door. In the three or four seconds it takes Gerry to walk across the living room to the bedroom door (which is open) the ‘abductor’ manages to hide either in the master bedroom or bathroom, or behind the door in the children’s bedroom (depending on which of their versions you prefer*) making no noise whatsoever.

    Gerry checks the kids and eventually leaves. The abductor, still in hiding, would wait a little to be sure Gerry had left and then check his patio door escape route, which he sees blocked by Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins.

    But instead of waiting a short while until the coast is clear he immediately picks up Madeleine (high risk of her waking up and Gerry hearing her), opens the window and shutters (very high risk of Gerry hearing that and higher risk of waking Madeleine up) climbs through this very difficult opening and finally leaves via a roundabout route that crosses the top of the road where the very person he's done all this to avoid is standing chatting.

    What grieves me most about this is that for years a whole pack of so-called 'quality' journalists have distorted and denied the basic reason and logic that says this scenario is as close to impossible as it’s possible to get.

    * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483026/Madeleines-fathers-chilling-belief-Kidnapper-hiding-flat-I-checked-her.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1563738/Madeleine-McCann-Gerry-certain-he-was-in-bedroom-with-kidnapper.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear 8, I quite agree with your every word! Has ANYONE tried the entire process, with a weight of a child, getting over the windowsill without the three year old waking up in such an uncomfortable position? How many proper reconstuctions have I missed?

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the Smith sighting of the man carrying the child, which Mr Smith felt up to eighty per cent sure was Gerry McCann, one of the other family members mentions that although he didn't recognise the man, he believed the man was wearing light coloured trousers 'with buttons', and lo and behold on 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' site on the 'Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A picture worth a thousand words' thread, someone has posted a photo of Gerry McCann wearing cream coloured trousers with buttons down the side.

    If this is for real, then I hope SY and any other relevant authority has been informed, as it should be investigated because are we supposed to believe this is yet another 'coincidence', and I doubt the Smith family member would ever have previously seen Gerry McCann wearing such trousers 'with buttons' on the side.

    I hope people will take a look at this photo if they have not already seen this, or before it may get removed by pro McCann who can get everywhere these days.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @6 the extra lighting as probably been put up to keep ppl away ,id imaging 5a is probably on the tourist trail and is likely to atract all sorts of weirdos not to mention ppl looking for "souvenirs"crime scenes allways atract souvenir hunters

    ReplyDelete
  12. @1
    Like you I've only just noticed that the route to the right would have been blocked by the wall, making it both extremely convoluted and dangerous (given that it took the abductor straight across Gerry McCann's line of vision).

    This can be seen more clearly from photos on the McCannfiles site

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

    (scroll down to 'Further views of 5A).

    This makes the 'abductor in the cupboard' scenario even closer to 100% impossible than I'd thought before.

    @8

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm sorry if slightly off topic but on the Jill Havern site there has apparently appeared a Troll called 'wgbrother', posting on 'Pat Brown: What about the Window', and the 'Re: Incitement' threads. In my opinion the posts are illogical and misleading. They argue that the 5A window can be raised easily, and that inciting TB to break his court undertaking was not an offence. The argument used is false in each case, and seems the hallmark of someone determined to discredit these obvious points. Would someone please warn JillHavern site of a likely Troll, taking advantage of the resignation of Stella, a worthy Moderator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pat Brown: 'What About the Window' Jill Havern site. A post by wgbrother 10.34 19 Feb says,

    "The direction would fit in with an abductor using the patio doors for entry and exit and an accomplice receiving the body via the window."

    What?? THE BODY?? Is this naother Freudian slip by you know who?
    Tell me just who is wgbrother? The more he/she posts the more they give themselves away it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A amateur burgler would try a door not a window to carry things out a child is like a tv to carry so no window was used it would cause complications of a clear getaway also the child would wake up so it had to be a door noone would carry a child in thier arms people would look instantly of the time of night for a child to be out that is a risk my theory is the child was passed from the door to a person then transported to a pushchair with a cover on then hidden in a basement of a church for few hours by the guy who took her with the pram even could have been put where the church yard is at the back where the cement mixer is then moved through the night to another destination then moved again and again maybe i am not saying no names in this but things will be proven one day i know it :)

    ReplyDelete