BROWN FINALLY BLOGS - AND IT IS AWFUL

The Mr Bean of profiling strikes again

(No mention yet that she's solved the case or anything is there?)

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
February 13, 2012 7:46 AM

And this is the caliber of audience that she is playing to.

They can't seem to grasp facets of British law, so I can understand how this carp has been spouted.

Now now, Lily, I am sure the PJ appreciated Brown telling them that there is an apartment block facing 3a

Pity Brown didn't bother to read the files, isn't it? If she had, she would have known that some of the residents gave witness statements.

This is top notch investigation work so far, Bonny. Am floored. Honestly. Laughing.

Forker:

Correct me if i'm wrong please, but is picture
2, the snap that shows Jane Tanner's sighting
displaying the wrong direction?
I think its showing 'town' direction, looking down
ways towards the beach direction. Instead, IMO
it should be looking the other way with 5a on the
left. Again, apologies if im wrong

He's right - Brown is looking in totally the wrong direction:



Sorry, I just can't help it.

I have to admit, Brown is doing far far better than I expected.

But she still has a long way to go before she betters Sarah Millican.

Smart arses always foul up.

For our American friends:



Sarah is a rather fine comedienne

For any members of MM or Haverns reading this, a comedienne is a female person whose job is to tell stories and jokes and make people laugh.

Much like Ms Brown, really. Except for the last bit, obviously.

Even the forkers know there is something wrong...


I am confused by the photo's Marxman. What we could do with is little plan of the streets/buildings the a mark showing where which photo was takeen and the direction it was taken in - to be thorough!

Not worth the effort, dear, Brown has screwed up big-time. Best thing she could do is get the first plane back to the States and never say the word 'McCann' again - unless it is in an apology.

Oh, my, what a shambles! Remind me never to employ such an ineffectual, stupid nonentity should I ever need a profiler! LL

honestbroker wrote: What's key is forward plann
ing

OR having a functioning brain. Patsy is a waste of space.

Is she gonna say the abductor is white or black, 1 or 2 of them, they might have had a car or might not, might be local might not, might have been staking out the apartment or might not have, might have seen the kids at the beach or might not have........................

We all knew she would stuff up, but no-one expected something as AWESOME as this disaster; she'd be well advised to head home tonight after this.

Notice Morais still hasn't updated her blog about Brown? I would think the word has gone round Team Gonc that Brown is making an idiot of herself - and them.

I know Gonc was incompetent, but he did manage to notice the apartment block opposite without waiting for Brown to point it out....

Come on now, be fair and give her a chance. She's well on her way to proving that there was an abduction.

Look at the more or less contemporary aerial photo:



You can SEE how high the trees were then.

And it's glaringly obvious that Brown has placed whoever Jane Tanner saw up on the road to the beach - completely, 100% wrongly.

Sabot wrote:
Come on now, be fair and give her a chance. She's well on her way to proving that there was an abduction.

She sure has, Sabot.

Dark, ground floor corner site, with no-one overlooking it - an abductor would be in and out in seconds, unseen.

That Arial photo also shows a pretty straightforward and quiet route to The Beach which is probably why the abductor went that way. The other way is a Main Road.

as a pretendy profiler, even SHE shld know that if burgulars/abductors never took risks, there wld be no burgularies or abductions ever=fact.

What Brown sez:



I am standing in the doorway. Can you see how bright it is at night?

Reality in May 2007:



Oh look, it is almost pitch dark.

Best thing she could do is pack it in before she does anything even stupider.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2012/02/hopefully-this-will-reach-pat-brown.html

ProfilerPatBPAT BROWN

My, my, aren't some upset about that "enlightening" photo from across the street. I guess they didn't realize there was such a view. #McCann

Probably because there wasn't. Look at all those trees in this daylight shot:



We all know Brown has trouble understanding words, but she could have least looked at the pictures.

And doesn't the fact that those trees were cut down and more lighting installed by the local council AFTER Madeleine was abducted tell her anything?

bb1 wrote:ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
My, my, aren't some upset about that "enlightening" photo from across the street. I guess they didn't realize there was such a view. #McCann

Isn't that where all the cigarette butts were found? The ones the PJ didn't bother collecting because there were too many of them?

She's a complete idiot, and would be well advised to get the first plane out of Portugal before she digs herself in any deeper.

To start off with, there were trees all around the car park in 2007 and they would have been in leaf. I was there in July 2010 and it was impossible for anyone to have seen the door to 5A or even the widow from those flats opposite. The door is totally tucked away out of sight in a very dark corner. Almost without doubt Madeleine was abducted thru that front door and the abductor got in by using a key. Meaning no fingerprints; the door opening as the key turned

Also with heavy growth of leaves, the street lights could not penetrate the foliage; it was damned dark by that window and positively creepy by the friont door in that deep tucked away alcove. The photograph that Pat displays, shows a different scenaio altogether. Not only is the area now bathed in light from the presently unimpeded street lamps, but also there is light coming from a source above. There was no light from above when we were there. You can see the shadow on the second window back of appartment 5A. This is illuminating the whole of that walkway and reflecting back.

Before the trees were cut down, that walkway was a place that no woman would have walked along at night. The front door corner recess gave me the heebee-jeebies even in daylight. It was out of sight and at the end of a long walled walkway.

The end of this walkway led nowhere except to the hidden front door of 5A. No one passed by; anyone could have loitered there unseen from the flats, or even the pathway along the road. This was because there was the wall along the walkway which, on the flats side was about 4 feet high. There was a difference in ground levels on either side of this wall, and from the car park, the wall looked about 3 feet tall. Even someone parking a car would have been unable to see someone at that front door if they pressed themselves against the side wall.

The front door is deep brown. As you can see it is not visible in any of these photos. To see it you have to go right over to the east of the car park ... where no -one goes cos' it doesn't lead to anywhere!

Catkins from pfa2 and Myths has also been there, more than once. She commented on her last trip about 3 months ago that all the foliage had been cut down and it looked different.

Pat Brown. You are talking rubbish.


Photographs by Swanray from Gerry Mccann blogs, with thanks. Photos were taken between May 2007 and July 2008

bb1 wrote:ProfilerPatBPAT BROWN

My, my, aren't some upset about that "enlightening" photo from across the street. I guess they didn't realize there was such a view. #McCann

Probably because there wasn't. Look at all those trees in this daylight shot:



We all know Brown has trouble understanding words, but she could have least looked at the pictures.

And doesn't the fact that those trees were cut down and more lighting installed by the local council AFTER Madeleine was abducted tell her anything?

Do you see from this photo that the Abductor had to go the way he went to avoid that Main Road on the right.

Also - the road down the side is often painted as some kind of narrow alleyway, which it clearly isn't.

The one place there is very little cover is on that main road.

Brown has been beyond foolish, IMO. Why on earth did she not do the most basic research before she started? It's glaringly obvious she hasn't bothered to read the police files, and person after person has commented on how dark that area is.

Sadie was there and has described it, as have many others. For her to state otherwise is insanity.

So even after the pitchforkers going "errrrrrrrrrr ummmmmmmm it looked different at the time, Pat" she's resorting to taunting those who disagree. Classy. I mean a professional given hard facts to use in her work and her response isn't "I'll have another think, thanks for that", she goes "Ooooooooh ya don't like it do yas".

A highly respectable, credible an overall unbiased response is that.