BROWN FINALLY BLOGS - AND IT IS AWFUL

Even this image confuses. Prat Brown hasn't bothered to identify whether this looks north, south, east, or west.



This actually looks south, yet shows very little. If you know the area, it shows the direction that Jane Tanner walked from, before spotting Bundleman. It shows where Gerry and Jez were talking, just to this side of that brighter street light.. To the left of that street lamp is a little car park. More about that later.

5A is on the RH side behind that wall. Where the building on the RH side looks taller, that is the main side of 5A. The steps up to the back of 5A (to patio doors) are on this wall lower down. Seems Gerry and Jez are on the opposite side of the road a few more yards further down. The alleyway between the the flats and the Tapas area starts just out of sight around the side of 5A and almost opposite Gerry and Jez

The Reception to the Tapas and swimming pool area is also down there on the RH side. Just a few strides past the entrance to the alleyway



Now a picture taken from a few yards down the slope and a few steps over to the east, which shows the scene better. With thanks to Kazluz and Gerrymccannsblogs




The strange thing is that Pats photograph (the night scene) show little and without specifying direction confuses. This is because we are used to generally seeing this scene the other way around. In other words, these photos both look South, downhill, and we are used to seeing the same scene, but looking uphill, which is the way that JT walked. The daylight one at least shows where everything is.and is recognisible

It makes more sense to me, to look at the place of the sighting rather than away from it. All very confusing to people who haven't been there.

Score: D minus
Try harder next time, Pat.

Now this from Pats blog

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.

She doesn't actually say that Jane Tanner said that bundleman was Robert, but somehow by mixing her into this paragraph there seems to be a subtle intimation that Jane Tanner had said that. Clever wording? ... or am I reading things that are not there?

sadie wrote:Now this from Prats blog

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.

She doesn't actually say that Jane Tanner said that bundleman was Robert, but somehow by mixing her into this paragraph there seems to be a subtle intimation that Jane Tanner had said that. Clever wording? ... or am I reading things that are not there?

You are right, and I don't think it is all that subtle. Apart from Jane Tanner no one else said they saw a man walking in that direction.

She hasn't the wits to use clever wording, Sadie, she hasn't even bothered to read the police files. Rubbish on forker sites is about her level.

1. It wasn't brightly-lit.

2. There are one or two 'issues' about Murat's whereabouts that night that have never really been explained.

I will hastily add that I don't see him having anything to do with it, apart from anything else for the simple reason that people with poor eyesight tend not to get up to no good in poor light.

There is something at the back of my mind to do with, I think, the Smith family? That they knew Murat, and ended up causing more problems for him?

Jayelles wrote:That last photo really shows how close the tapas bar is to the McCann apartment.

Looking at it from the air the whole place looks a bloody sight safer than it actually was.

IMO, it's possible he was outside at some point that night, HB, because he heard the commotion, was coming back from a bar, anything - but after Gonc began stitching him up - and let us not forget, it was GONC who started it - he insisted he was in his mother's home all night.

I know there seem to have been an endless number of men all looking vaguely the same in PDL at the time, but a lot of people were sure they saw Murat.

AND JANE TANNER WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.

It's just another of those odd loose ends.

Pat B

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.

Oh, yes. Smarter to turn round (suspicious!) and then to walk in the same direction as Jane Tanner with Jane right behind and possibly angling to look at the childs face..... Yeah, Right!


Only my opinion, but I think that Bundleman was expecting to be picked up by a getaway driver on that corner. The getaway vehicle had been parked on the little car park (see the GE image) and couldn't come becos Gerry and Jez were in the way. JT was in the way too, and she, possibly they, would have witnessed the pick up of Madeleine.

I believe that bundleman had to think on his feet and decided that the best way was forward rather than back., There were short routes right round, via alleyways, to that little car park.

Trouble was that having seen JT witnessing the abduction , the accomplis scarpered in the van leaving Bundleman on his tod.

Only my thoughts


At this point, I should tell you that the whole area is riddled with alleyways. They are everywhere.

I don't know about vans or anything, Sadie.

But I do know there is one way guaranteed to arouse suspicion, and that is to suddenly act peculiarly when you realise you have been seen.

Especially if you have been spotlighted in one of the few spots in that area that had semi-normal lighting - it's right there in the photo:



ETA, oh, I suppose I had better spell it out for lurking forkers..

Look at the area behind the trees. That is where 5a is. Without lights.

Look at the left of the photo. That is a street light.

PJ Photographs



Pat Brown photographs

Thanks Bonny for those photos. Even the top photo by the PJ is not accurate as far as light was concerned. There is added lighting to the front doorway end of that walkway. Compare the LH of two pictures together which is the start of the front door recess. It was really dark by that front door and quite deeply recessed.

Remember the trees have been cut down so light streams in now, where it was dark before ... and there is an additional overhead light in Pats photos

Bogeyman land

This photograph (thank you Bonny) clearly shows why it was so black on Ocean Club car park and by that front door. See the street light? It is not as tall as the trees surrounding the car park. The area was almost totally unlit, except for one small part in the centre of the block, in the open but deeply recessed area that I think led to the stairs. There had been a full moon the night before.

The walkway started here too but it was about 40 feet IIRC along that walkway and as the light was recessed it didn't illuminate the path much at all.

Additionally and imo, quite importantly, anyone coming thru the car park entrance as they walked back to their flats would be walking towards these stairway lobby lights. They would be walking towards the lights rather than dark areas, and actually looking at this lighted area rather than the dark areas.

Furthermore, the route everyone had to take to get to their flats was diagonally across the car park. This diagonal route had to be walked by everyone because it led to the start of the walkway and the stairs, and on to the flats One looks in the direction one is walking and also at lights rather than blackness.

This meant that the entrance to 5A was at right angles to their line of vision. No-one sees anything at right angles to their line of vision, even in daylight



For your information the lighted area where everyone had to walk to, is in the middle of the block. It is the area between the "n" in "Madeleine" (hot pink colour) and the "c" in "front car park" (white colour print). The walkway started here.

Effectively, after dark, the entrance to 5A was invisible, totally hidden. Just asking for trouble

It is all much more clear to me now after seeing these pictures. I have wondered why the Abductor crossed that road and walked that way, but it is obvious when the only other way is a main road. And no one would park a getaway car in that car park as it is a trap.

I suspect that the abductor had to inform someone that the deed had been accomplished and then wait for pick up which is why he had to lurk for half an hour. Possibly a boat coming in from another boat off shore. The Pick Up wouldn't want to hang about on the off chance.

And after the debacle of The Anthony Case I now know that chloroform is very easy make, with little or no smell if it is done correctly. If chloroform smells then you haven't done it right.

Thank you, Pat Brown. You have cleared up a few doubtful pieces of the jigsaw for me, although I never doubted that an Abduction happened, but I did want to get it right in my head.

Interesting, is it not, that the forkers try to make this all sound terribly complicated, when it is actually anything but? Wonder what their agenda is for doing that?

Think she'll turn up on the Bar Habana webcam?

http://www.algarve-luzbay.com/webcam/cam_page.html

Looks nice today.

Sabot wrote:
It is all much more clear to me now after seeing these pictures. I have wondered why the Abductor crossed that road and walked that way, but it is obvious when the only other way is a main road. And no one would park a getaway car in that car park as it is a trap.

I suspect that the abductor had to inform someone that the deed had been accomplished and then wait for pick up which is why he had to lurk for half an hour. Possibly a boat coming in from another boat off shore. The Pick Up wouldn't want to hang about on the off chance.

And after the debacle of The Anthony Case I now know that chloroform is very easy make, with little or no smell if it is done correctly. If chloroform smells then you haven't done it right.

Thank you, Pat Brown. You have cleared up a few doubtful pieces of the jigsaw for me, although I never doubted that an Abduction happened, but I did want to get it right in my head.

Hi Sabot

My mind is running in a slightly different direction. I am thinking that the driver of that getaway car on that little car park was sitting there watching and directing proceedings. I imagine the "abduction routine" had been practiced and timed, because this was a well planned abduction imo. This driver was parked in such a way that he could see the Tapas Reception and also the steps up/Patio balcony at 5A and he was directing via mobile phone, I expect. However, there was a booboo, because he was also in a position where he couldn't see Gerry or Jez. Had he been able to see them, he wouldn't have given the go ahead.

The criteria for the correct view are:
1) view of the Tapas reception
2) View of the steps up or the patio doors of 5A
3) NO-view of Gerry and Jez

As far as i could see, there were just two parking places on that little car park, that had the correct view and they were the two nearest the Tapas reception (across the road) <<< this assessment was done hurriedly and needs checking if anyone is going to PdL. From memory there was a fairly high garden wall (that spotty face stood by watching 5A in the video reconstruction) that hid certain things in most parking positions. If you look at the GE image, it is just above the first car in that little car park.

[Can I suggest you print off that GE image for reference. It is quite time consuming to keep posting it.]


However there were also a number of houses behind the cars also with the correct view: Maybe someone could have been watching from a house, ready to dash to the car/van after giving instructions? These houses are the ones in the bottom RH corner of the GE image. Each roof has two houses under it' IIRC. At the time, I think I reckoned about 5 or 6 of those houses has the correct view, but it was difficult to assess.


There is another row of houses that runs behind these houses you see. They are off the bottom of the GEarth image. These houses are linked to the little car park by a short hidden alleyway. This alleyway runs between the first four house (two rooves) and the other houses at a diagonal slant. It links to the little street behind. If you look carefully, or better still open up GE and zoom in, you will see this short alleyway.

Just one house in that second row has the necessary view and that interestingly is number 35, which is is/was Fazalackerys (Sp?) house. That also has the correct view.


This proves absolutely nothing about Fazerlackerys involvement. I repeat, absolutely nothing, ... but, in luie of the interest shown in him by the PJ, it should surely be noted ?
Probably already is.




Note: This theory is only a theory, but it works, and not many (if any?) others do. It is dependent upon Gerry and Jez not being by the alleyway at the time that the watcher was looking, but in the middle of the road or towards the opposite side (eastern) of the road from 5A gate and the Tapas reception. This is as Gerry recollects. In a place that was out of sight to the watcher/ getaway driver


If my theory is correct, those three criteria really narrow it down, dont they?



Oh, how I wish that I could post GEarth images without troubling anyone. I am not good with words. I cant waste any more of Tonys time; he has been most generous. My hubby is hoping to help me, but I must wait.


PS. Am sending you, sabot, a copy of other GE images by email.

Thanks, Sadie. The main point is that an abduction is so possible.

Brown really should have read the police files:

http://www.algarve-luzbay.com/webcam/cam_page.html

Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.

- These facts were reported by the security guard.

- The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the die of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.

So, persons unknown managed to force the shutters WHEN THE PREMISES WERE BEING GUARDED.

Makes rather a nonsense of all those interminable forker rants about shutters, doesn't it?

ETA, oh look, here is a forker making a fool of itself:

C. Edwards says:
Oh nice point, well made SP. Obviously, as "any of us would have done" he was shocked and traumatised by the time he talked to Phil and completely forgot that he, a superman among men, was able to raise the security shutter with a sweep of his mighty fingers. Neither Dianne Webster nor Fiona Payne (? I think it was her from memory?) were able to accomplish the same when they tried as the shutters just, as they're designed to do, twisted and buckled to stop them lifting.

So, why is it a matter of record in the police files that they can be forced? Why do the crime scene photos show them open, exactly as Gerry McCann described?

Did no-one tell that forker that fit men tend to be better at lifting things than women?

Did no-one tell that forker that the PJ had not the slightest interest in the shutters because they knew they could be lifted?

Silly forker.

Identical shutters on a house down the road from me were forced up and no one heard a thing in a village that is as quiet as the grave at night, and often during the day.

bb1 wrote:Brown really should have read the police files:



Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.

- These facts were reported by the security guard.

- The guard said that the incident happened between 21.00 and 21.05, when he was making his 21.00 round of the block containing Apartment 5 A and then walked down the die of 5 A, down the road to the Baptista supermarket and then returned up the same road, returning to the surroundings of Apartment 5 A and saw that in that short space of time, someone who he cannot identify as he saw nobody around, had approached the window and forced the shutters. At about 21.06 he alerted reception and the GNR.

So, persons unknown managed to force the shutters WHEN THE PREMISES WERE BEING GUARDED.

Makes rather a nonsense of all those interminable forker rants about shutters, doesn't it?

Coming at all of this relatively "fresh", it is interesting to see the anti "case" against the McCanns crumbling brick by brick. It does make one wonder about motivation and sanity.

It's odd the way the forkers obsess on those shutters, yet ignore what is recorded about them in the police files, Sabot.

Well, the fact that they so readily parrot any old rubbish, as long as it is anti-McCann, is rather telling, Jean Pierre.

But what really gets me is this business of them choosing third-hand hearsay in tabloids over what is a matter of record in the police files.

Brown made a fool of herself yesterday; the Amazon forkers are currently making idiots of themselves because they haven't bothered to read the police files.

I wish I knew why the last thing they ever go seeking is the truth.

The whole thing completely collapsed several years ago, JP. I really don't understand how they keep going. Nowadays it is just one disaster after another for them. I should have invested in Blood Pressure Medication yonks ago. You can almost feel the steam coming out of their ears.

I am currently in stitches at that C.Edwards troll - the one who made a fool of itself on PFA a while back. Or, as it claims:

I went through a lot of point 1 on the pfa2 forum and they just got increasingly abusive as they got backed into a corner before banning me because the idiot moderator thought that me and my sister were the same person.



Meanwhile, in the real world, everyone knew it was the same person getting more and more irate as it dug itself into an ever-deeper hole. Edwards did keep everyone entertained with that display of troll-ery, though.

It's getting angrier and angrier on Amazon now, hurling abuse at other members, which is most amusing to watch

Oh dear, another gem from the troll:

What you, and your fellow rabble rousers fail to realise is that you are now in the minority. More people who know about the McCann case doubt them than believe them now. You only have to see what happens to the votes on the comments section on the daily mail online when it publishes an article and allows comment.

Yes, what happens is that the bored Mail subs who are watching the comments ROFL at the usual sad forker trolls hatespamming comments - they can see ips, you know

They know perfectly well that it is the same people over and over again, and that the hatespam is organised on MM, haverns and FB.

They even know how the arrows are being rigged by the forkers - Morais foolishly explained how to rig online polls.

Funny how forkers never realise they are being played for fools

Identical shutters on a house down the road from me were forced up and no one heard a thing in a village that is as quiet as the grave at night, and often during the day.

That man was in the area specifically as a guard, at about 9 at night, when the shutters were forced - and the first thing he knew was when he actually saw them.

So much for them making enough noise to wake the dead.

bb1 wrote:Identical shutters on a house down the road from me were forced up and no one heard a thing in a village that is as quiet as the grave at night, and often during the day.

That man was in the area specifically as a guard, at about 9 at night, when the shutters were forced - and the first thing he knew was when he actually saw them.

So much for them making enough noise to wake the dead.

I know, Bonny. These misconceptions started almost at the beginning. But then we all know why now. I wish I had know how easy it is to make Chloroform when we were all poo hooed for suggesting such a thing.

Oh dear me....

General E Speaking says:
Imagine him in a reconstruction demonstrating how easy it is to lift the shutters from outside.

No need for Gerry McCann to do that - someone believed to be part of a TV film crew did it for him almost right under the nose of the police guard.