More nonsense from Brown as she plays the role of Jane Tanner, LOLOLOL

She's blogged again, this one is called:

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street

Please note, it has MONDAY'S date on it, though no doubt that will be changed several times by the end of the week.



It begins:

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.

Entirely possible; they might also post photos WHICH ARE LOOKING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.



It's all downhill from then on...

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.

Yes, probably best, under the circumstances...

This sums up the whole thing, really...

Retired British police officer, PM, and I reenacted the scenario



So, run this by me again?

Two members of Havern's played silly sods in PDL, pretending to be Jane Tanner, Gerry McCann, and Jez Wilkins. I don't think we know who took the role of the man carrying the child? No, Brown doesn't seem to have bothered too much about that small detail...

I can't be bothered copying that nonsense, frankly - what is the point of it?

Oops! All those forkers who thought her 'Brit ex-cop' was someone Very Important will be sooo disappointed that Patsy has let that cat out of the bag.

Whole thing is ridiculous; if they were talking Bloke about football, or cars, or something, they wouldn't have noticed if a bomb had gone off.

bb1 wrote:

Oops! All those forkers who thought her 'Brit ex-cop' was someone Very Important will be sooo disappointed that Patsy has let that cat out of the bag.

The woman is nothing but a nasty little puckwudgie

Has she forgot the Wilkins had a baby in the pram?

NOBODY stands still while they have a kid in the pram. If the pram has swivel wheels and you are moving it back and forwards, you will at some point, have turned full circle.

pat brown

I take it Brown has actually read the Smith family's statements?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic59.html

As they were made in Portimao, at the end of May 2007 - then why didn't Mr Smith recognise Gerry McCann?

One school of thought is that Mr Smith was actually going out of his way to help his acquaintance Murat...

He adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at this time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT, as he would have recognised him immediately.

I cannot work out whether it was Mr Smith who was drunk and not wearing glasses, or Robert Murat, but never mind.

If Brown had bothered to read the statements, she would know that the description isn't very much like Gerry McCann in the first place, not to mention..

he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist, not being able to explain why he had this perception, however he presumes it because of the individual's clothing.

As for his later flash of light..

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child

He claims his wife agrees with him but she doesn't want to make a statement.

As for the rest of the party..

During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife.

And that is what all this nonsense is based on - no wonder the PJ never followed it up, even after their error in thinking Eire was part of the UK had been pointed out.

Apologies - greenink kindly posted Brown's latest effort in the other thread:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t1163p495-brown-finally-blogs-and-it-is-awful

And I forgot to bring it over to this one.

Monday, February 20, 2012
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street



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

-------------

What is she trying to insinuate with that last remark? That the Wilkins are IN IT, too?

Re: Pat brown blog - how Jane Tanner got lost in a crowd on empty street
david_uk Today at 10:28 pm

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

TREASON!!!!!!!!!

rhodes wrote:Has she forgot the Wilkins had a baby in the pram?

NOBODY stands still while they have a kid in the pram. If the pram has swivel wheels and you are moving it back and forwards, you will at some point, have turned full circle.

You've hit the nail on the head Rhodes. Pushing a toddler who wont sleep, to rock him to sleep. Any chance that Jez would stop rocking, pushing, that pushchair and have him wake up. No way

I've been there with a child that wont go to sleep; a chronic case. Once my son had dropped off, nothing got in the way of keeping him asleep.

My bet is they met in the middle of the Road and wandered around talking mainly about the little boy ... and that was where their eyes were.



As for an abductor to go into or out of 5A carrying Madeleine with Gerry so close, the woman is absolutely nuts to even suggest it.

The woman cant even get the name of the road right. She has missed the Fransisco part of the street name out

It is Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.
I, personally, have no objection to your shortening it, so long as you get it right first time and tell us that you are shortening it. Just a simple courtesy, Pat

Look at the photo she's used:



It's going down in the direction of the beach, not the top of the road where Jane Tanner saw the man with the child.

Once again, the front door is not being mentioned. Amaral always steers away from the front door too. I wonder why?

Cos if someone entered by the front door without marking it, he had a key. That then points to someone at Ocean club. Amaral always said that nobody could have got in thru the front door, because it was locked.

What rubbish. In the previous couple of weeks two apartments in the same block had been entered vis locked front doors apparantly using a key. Amaral should have known that.

So why does he keep taking the eye away from the front door? Why is it that Pat will not consider it either? Anyone got any ideas?


It is the most solitary, most hidden and darkess spot on the outside of 5A, and the easiest to use. Open the door using only the key, the lifter goes in and opens the window (escape route, borrowed light from the moonshine, means of communication between the lifter/druggist and Bundleman, dissipates the smell of Chloroform if used, opportunity to pass stuff thru, but not Madeleine, and presents a red herring, taking the attention from the front door.

Madeleine went out thru that front door, much easier. Door pulled to using only the key. Madeleine passed from lifter to Bundleman and off they go in their different directions. Lifter to where-ever(staff quarters?) and Bundleman to his pick up on Jane Tanner corner.

But pick up failed becos of Jane witnessing it and Madeleines Father being in the way.



The whole abduction was so straight forward and over in a couple of minutes. Simples.



One thing that keeps nagging at me:
Wonder why Amaral and Pat Brown keep taking the attention away from the front door?

bb1 wrote:Look at the photo she's used:



It's going down in the direction of the beach, not the top of the road where Jane Tanner saw the man with the child.

That is another thing. Somewhere she has gone on about narrow pavements IIRC (pavements NOT sidewalks <<< who wrote her blog?).. Your photo Bonny, shows just how "narrow" the pavements are. They seem wide enough to me.

Brown took that picture, Sadie, and that is not my idea of a narrow road. There has been a deliberate attempt to present it as little more than a lane, when it is anything but.

And the front door is the elephant in the room - none of the forkers even want to hear about that door.

Yet it's the answer to the whole riddle, IMO.

bb1 wrote:Brown took that picture, Sadie, and that is not my idea of a narrow road. There has been a deliberate attempt to present it as little more than a lane, when it is anything but.

And the front door is the elephant in the room - none of the forkers even want to hear about that door.

Yet it's the answer to the whole riddle, IMO.

The road is neither wide nor narrow Bonny. An average sort of width and the pavements are quite generous, beautifully cobbled like the ones you saw in old Lisbon in the historic part. I loved those worn softly gleaming pavements of old Lisboa. Did you see Casa Pia when you were there? In Belem, behind Jeronimos Monastry. Creepy and the deaf and dumb school. Awww, bet some of those poor kids were badly abused.


The interesting thing about Pats photo is that it shows just how high the outer perimeter wall is by the front door. Do you remember, I was after a photo with a GNR/PJ officer standing near it? Well it is that tiny bit of wall that goes off the pictur on the RH side, As is quite obvious, anyone driving past from the south or from the east, would have no view of that front door. Silly woman. Surely she isn't making this rubbish up? Surely someone must be feeding it to her? Surely she cannot be this unobservant and lacking in attention to the overall picture, let alone detail



PAT ... LOOK AT THE FRONT DOOR: IT'S THE FRONT DOOR PAT, where it all happened

Sorry, didn't realise that the photo was not showing on this page.



The extreme front door/kitchen end of the perimeter wall that I was talking about in my last post; the wall that is so high is shown on the very RH side of this photograph. Seriously high on this side, but because the paking lot has been built up behind this wall it is only about a metre, or 4 feet high, on the Front door side.

sadie wrote:

bb1 wrote:Look at the photo she's used:



It's going down in the direction of the beach, not the top of the road where Jane Tanner saw the man with the child.

That is another thing. Somewhere she has gone on about narrow pavements IIRC (pavements NOT sidewalks <<< who wrote her blog?).. Your photo Bonny, shows just how "narrow" the pavements are. They seem wide enough to me.

For an American who is somewhat ignorant, the pavements (roads in American English) would look narrow to her. To Europeans they don't appear to be too narrow. So, that helps her to stir the pot further.

When you get right down to it, it doesn't matter what she and PM say. They were not there in PdL, in the vicinity of 5A, when Madeleine went missing. They don't know who was standing and looking exactly where, at any given second, so what they assume is pointless.

lily wrote:When you get right down to it, it doesn't matter what she and PM say. They were not there in PdL, in the vicinity of 5A, when Madeleine went missing. They don't know who was standing and looking exactly where, at any given second, so what they assume is pointless.

Exactly, these are assumptions based on statements which are not direct quotes from the people involved. It is impossible to place precise meaning on such statements as she attempts to do.

greenink211 wrote:

lily wrote:When you get right down to it, it doesn't matter what she and PM say. They were not there in PdL, in the vicinity of 5A, when Madeleine went missing. They don't know who was standing and looking exactly where, at any given second, so what they assume is pointless.

Exactly, these are assumptions based on statements which are not direct quotes from the people involved. It is impossible to place precise meaning on such statements as she attempts to do.

Absolutely, Greenink. It would be thrown out in a court of law, but nevertheless, the forkers eat it up.

It's wince-making, for two members of Havern's to play around being four adults and two young children.

Real Amateur Hour stuff.

Amazon forker following the party line...


Because it's not possible on such a narrow pavement/street

Why do they insist on denying the evidence of their own eyes?

bb1 wrote:It's wince-making, for two members of Havern's to play around being four adults and two young children.

Real Amateur Hour stuff.

The embarrassing thing is that they think they can make a difference to the outcome of the McCann's issue.

Forker:

Some things should be looked at a lot more closely. I think the issue of the blanket is crucial. Did the child Jane Tanner saw have a blanket and did the child the Smiths saw have a blanket. And was that blanket missing from the apartment. There are so many basic things in this case that just don't seem to have been picked up on.

I know, shocking, isn't it? How hard would it have been to ask the Portuguese dog handler who was the last person known to have the blanket what he did with it?

For all anyone knows, it's lining Fido's kennel.

Seriously, why do they make mysteries out of naff-all, instead of doing the most basic checking of details?