Trees cut down and floodlight fitted at apartment 5a after the abduction.

[sadie]

Sadie, IMO Mark Warner had the trees removed, as a result of the UK police comments that 5A was virtually a would-be intruder's paradise - not only because it was next to 2 streets but because of all the shrubs and trees which were so close to it, both at the front and the rear of the property, and which kept much of it hidden from view.    And also of course because of what happened to Madeleine.

I don't think Pat Brown had anything to do with it - but because of her abysmal lack of research she didn't know when she visited PdL that the view of 5A that she saw, bore no resemblance to how it was on the night Madeleine was abducted.

Her only achievement as a result of her visit to PdL was to make a complete fool of herself.

You could be right Benice, but why only the eastern part of that block?  And holiday companies, in my experience, are very aware of appearances. immediately looking after repairing any weaknesses in appearances.


Right or wrong, Benice, it doesn't alter the fact that Amaral jumped on the bandwagon and encouraged / ?arranged that professional photograph to be taken of a view that he knew to be the opposite of the NON view in 2007. 


Did he arrange for Pat Brown to come over?  Who paid the flights?  Was she set up as a Patsy?
So many questions

[Benice]

You could be right Benice, but why only the eastern part of that block?  And holiday companies, in my experience, are very aware of appearances. immediately looking after repairing any weaknesses in appearances.


Right or wrong, Benice, it doesn't alter the fact that Amaral jumped on the bandwagon and encouraged / ?arranged that professional photograph to be taken of a view that he knew to be the opposite of the NON view in 2007. 


Did he arrange for Pat Brown to come over?  Who paid the flights?  Was she set up as a Patsy?
So many questions

Maybe it was merely a question of cost Sadie - who knows.  In view of what had happened to Madeleine  in 5A -  I think the OC felt compelled to improve the security at that end of the apartment block in particular.

I do agree that Amaral would take full advantage of anything that would benefit himself  - regardless of whether it was true or not - that fact is quite plain from his book.   


   

[sadie]

Maybe it was merely a question of cost Sadie - who knows.  In view of what had happened to Madeleine  in 5A -  I think the OC felt compelled to improve the security at that end of the apartment block in particular.

I do agree that Amaral would take full advantage of anything that would benefit himself  - regardless of whether it was true or not - that fact is quite plain from his book.   


   

Took them a long time Benice.

I was there is mid 2010, over 3 years after Madeleines abduction, and at that time all the trees were there ... and looking very beautiful.

Anyone been there since to check things out?


Yep on the bottom line, Amaral took advantage of being able to propagate a lie.  Is that legal?   Altering the evidence effectively, via that photo and Brown, to cover his back?

[John]

Let's look at what we have here.

Ocean Club had the trees cut down adjacent to  McCanns apartment, trees which obviously gave rise to some security concerns.  It took them over three years to do so however.

Amaral used more recent photos of the view of the apartment as seen from the car park entrance in order to give a false impression as to what the scene was like on the night of the abduction.  These photos depicted a floodlight night scene, something which didn't exist on 3rd May 2007.

[Redblossom]

ETA, in fact the security light was installed at least by october 2007, it is clearly visible in the Despatches documentary aired on that date

[sadie]

Yes Indeedy! So cannot * have been installed ready for Pat Brown* who visited in 2012
 

ETA, in fact the security light was installed at least by october 2007, it is clearly visible in the Dispatches documentary aired on that date

Well I was there in mid 2010 and there was no illumination from a light on that wall.  It was really dark

ETA No light but it is possible that there was a lamp fitted that I didn't notice, I suppose.  However the crux of the matter is that there was no lamp at the time of the abduction ... and Pat Brown with Amaral used a photograph, showing a huge search lamp lit, to produce a false situation.  Effectively, imo, falsifying evidence.

[John]

Clearly the spotlight was fitted in the months after the abduction occurred since it was in place by October 2007.

The trees however were cut down much later as they existed in 2010 but were gone by Pat Brown's visit in 2012.

[sadie]

Clearly the spotlight was fitted in the months after the abduction occurred since it was in place by October 2007.

The trees however were cut down much later as they existed in 2010 but were gone by Pat Brown's visit in 2012.

No I will amend as necessary.  Too much info there john to consider scrapping it, just one mistake.  Please change the title if you wish.

[John]

Readers who contributed to this topic should note that it has been edited to reflect the fact that the spotlight was fitted in the months after Madeleine's abduction.  Thanks to Redblossom for clarifying this.

The thread title has also been altered.

[Carana]

Clearly the spotlight was fitted in the months after the abduction occurred since it was in place by October 2007.

The trees however were cut down much later as they existed in 2010 but were gone by Pat Brown's visit in 2012.

The bottom line for me is that many of the photos posted after the disappearance do not reflect the conditions at the time. Whether a projector was installed x days later or months later... doesn't alter the fact that it was not there at the time. Whether the trees were chopped down in 2010 or 2011 doesn't change the fact that they were there in early May 2007.

My point being that photos which an average person may assume to be contemporaneous with the disappearance are at best misleading and at worst not only libellous by innuendo, but more importantly potentially damaging to the search for a missing child.

When I first saw the night-time photo in Amaral's book, I wondered as well how the members of the group could have failed to notice an open window with curtains. It was only later that I realised that those conditions did not exist at the time and that someone going on a quick check would have no particular reason to peer at a window in the shadows (to one's left) as opposed to focusing on the main entrance (to one's right).

[sadie]

The bottom line for me is that many of the photos posted after the disappearance do not reflect the conditions at the time. Whether a projector was installed x days later or months later... doesn't alter the fact that it was not there at the time. Whether the trees were chopped down in 2010 or 2011 doesn't change the fact that they were there in early May 2007.

My point being that photos which an average person may assume to be contemporaneous with the disappearance are at best misleading and at worst not only libellous by innuendo, but more importantly potentially damaging to the search for a missing child.

When I first saw the night-time photo in Amaral's book, I wondered as well how the members of the group could have failed to notice an open window with curtains. It was only later that I realised that those conditions did not exist at the time and that someone going on a quick check would have no particular reason to peer at a window in the shadows (to one's left) as opposed to focusing on the main entrance (to one's right).

Me too.  Never read Amarals book.  Couldn't be bothered with it after reading early inaccuracies/ make believe,

But that Pat Brown photograph shook me to the core.  Having been there, I instantly saw thru the lie.  It was a blatent example of disinformation and propaganda being put about.  And Amaral was her supporter ... maybe he set it up?


It mislead you.  I wonder how many other people it mislead?

[Carana]

Me too.  Never read Amarals book.  Couldn't be bothered with it after reading early inaccuracies/ make believe,

But that Pat Brown photograph shook me to the core.  Having been there, I instantly saw thru the lie.  It was a blatent example of disinformation and propaganda being put about.  And Amaral was her supporter ... maybe he set it up?


It mislead you.  I wonder how many other people it mislead?

I'm more curious as to why a bone-fide chief detective published photos in a book concerning something as potentially crucial as lighting that simply didn't exist at the time....

[ShiningInLuz]

The relevant photo is the one dated 4 May 2007.

No floodlight.

Trees as they were on 3rd May.  Key point to note - the foliage of the trees is at the same level as the street lights, so although there are decent street lights the car park and front of 5A were considered to be dark.

I'm lost on references to photos of the front in Amaral's book.  I ain't got no such photos, and the book comments are to what someone could have seen inside the car park.  As it happens, the photo above shows that pedestrians and cars can see the block UNDER the foliage, as viewed from the street.

Anyone entering the car park was pretty much opposite 5B, just slightly off 5A.  (And the photos in the thread marked 5A, 5B, 5D and 5H are wrong.  There is no central access point to the block in the photo, though there is in reality.)

[sadie]

The relevant photo is the one dated 4 May 2007.

No floodlight.

Trees as they were on 3rd May.  Key point to note - the foliage of the trees is at the same level as the street lights, so although there are decent street lights the car park and front of 5A were considered to be dark.

I'm lost on references to photos of the front in Amaral's book.  I ain't got no such photos, and the book comments are to what someone could have seen inside the car park.  As it happens, the photo above shows that pedestrians and cars can see the block UNDER the foliage, as viewed from the street.

Anyone entering the car park was pretty much opposite 5B, just slightly off 5A.  (And the photos in the thread marked 5A, 5B, 5D and 5H are wrong.  There is no central access point to the block in the photo, though there is in reality.)

Yep they can be seen from there Shining.  That is west of the car park entrance and is where none of the Tapas group walked.  They had turned into the car park before then.   The roadway slopes up and from the exterior the wall seems lower because of that.  But anyway, thta part is irrelevant cos none of them passed it.  For Ms Baptista to have seen a car outside the Mccann apartment she would have to have been looking backwards, or at least at an angle of 90^ before that time

On the corner the damned external wall is too high to see over.  The corner has to be passed before seeing over [tall/ average height person].  This means before the window and door came into view over the top of the exterior wall the viewer had to be looking at least 90^ to his normal walking/driving line of vision.  Progressively this angle got worse [more obtuse] the further he/she walked towards their apartments


But refering to this photo

http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/12/00/06/04/projom10.jpg
, my bet is that even a tall walker would have to be well around the corner  and past the Ocean Club sign, before being able to see over the wall. 
Perhaps if you have the time Shining, you would be kind enough to check that situation please ?


To assist people that have not been there, looking at the above 'fisheye' photo, the position of the camera in the other image was almost at the RH extremity of the fisheye image, past the drive in and where the trees were not cut down.

Coming from the tapas Reception (to the left of the 'fisheye ' photo), the walker would never be able to see above the wall until around the corner  That wall is really high, but lessens a little each stride because of the hillside the walker is climbing.  The perspective confuses the image unfortuantely


I am not sure that i have described that well.  Sorry



BTW, the deeply recessed doorway peeping above the LH wall is the front door recess for 5A

Can you imagine with this high wall and dense trees (especially dense on that corner) plus the lack of lighting, just how hidden that front door was.


I am pretty convinced the front door was used both for entry and exit.