Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)

14 - Pat Brown - Chroniques

Pat Brown Blog

 


Look! It''s a Sex Ring,,, no, It's Gypsies, no.... It's Burglars! - 05.01.2014

Maybe it was a confused cat burglar
According to the "news" media which anything but these days, Scotland Yard has solved the six year long mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann. Media around the world is reporting that Scotland Yard has identified a burglary ring of three men as the kidnappers of Madeleine in a burglary gone wrong. Scotland Yard is also reported to be frustrated with Portugal because in refusing to do a joint investigation, Scotland Yard cannot arrest these three men. Furthermore, they are appalled that Portugal is focused on a dead suspect whom Scotland Yard has already eliminated. Now, let's pretend that the media actually got their all their information from a credible source. If so, what is that credible source, Scotland Yard, telling us? Mostly that they are either incredibly incompetent or they are incredibly crooked. Let's look at the facts.
1. The only evidence cited that has made these three men suspects is that they supposedly had a criminal background and supposedly tried to burgle another flat in the complex on another night and that they supposedly exchanged a number of phone calls after Madeleine went missing. All three of these pieces of "evidence" in no way connect these men to the disappearance of Maddie. You couldn't possibly arrest these three men because there isn't probable cause to do so.
2. Burglary rings don't steal children. I can't remember the last time I heard of robbers deciding to kidnap a child instead of taking jewelry and money.
3. Once one of the burglars opened the door to the children's room and peeped in, they would have seen cribs and a small child in bed. Most burglars, realizing this is kid's bedroom, would immediately close the door and go to locations where valuables were more likely to be.
4. If a burglar went into the children's room and saw a little girl awake and looking at them, likely he would simply leave. The chances of a three-year-old child being able to identify a stranger in a dark room is extremely unlikely.
5. If the burglar stole the child, what did he do with her? A ransom demand would be the likely next step but there has been no ransom demand. Burglars are not connected to child sex rings or adoption rings, so did they then realize they had to kill her? What did they do with her body? Chances are, if they were stupid enough to grab a child and then not know what to do with her, they would have just dumped her body in a ditch and she would have been found.
6. If the burglars ran into an awake child and kidnapped her because she had seen them, they would have had to carry a screaming child away, not a comatose one. We know Maddie was not sedated because her parents told us so.
7. The burglars would not have been carrying chloroform around with them to knock out the child. The only way one of the burglars could have carried the child away in that state is if he accidentally killed her trying to keep her from screaming. Again, easier to run, and where is her body?
8. How did the burglars get into the flat? There is no sign of a break in. If they had a key, then why do we not see the most likely rooms to be burglarized tossed? If one enters into the living room, one would search there and then the master bedroom which they would likely know exactly where it was because they would know the layout of these apartments being a clever burglary ring who accessed keys. Of course, if we believe the later statements of the parents that they left the sliding door open, the burglars could have accessed the flat in that manner but that would still have them ending up in the living room where nothing was touched. We must allow the possibility that the burglar ran into Maddie wandering around the living room and killed her there instead of fleeing, but, again, this is overkill, pun intended, and extremely unlikely to have happened.
9. There was zero evidence of anyone burglarizing the apartment. Not a thing was touched that would lead one to believe burglars were searching for valuables.
10. No fingerprints were left in the flat, but one could claim that the burglars used gloves because this would indeed be done by experienced burglars. But, the Smiths did not note that the man carrying the little girl was wearing gloves nor did Jane Tanner (although, of course, that sighting was an innocent father carrying his own child).
11. If the burglars were working the complex that night, why were there no other burglaries reported occurring that evening? Did all go wrong on the very first one? If the burglars were together when they stole Maddie, why are they phoning each other? If only one stole the child, how many phone calls does it take to get your two friends over to help you?
12. How was Tractor Man eliminated when Scotland Yard cannot investigate in Portugal? He can only be eliminated if it is found it was physically impossible for him to commit the crime that evening. If Portugal still really has him as their main suspect, then he has not been eliminated. The simple facts remain. There is no evidence of an abduction and no evidence that any sex ring took Maddie and no evidence of a child sex predator having abducted her and no evidence that burglars took Maddie in a botched robbery. Without any evidence pointing in these directions, one cannot even construct a decent theory because a good theory has to be based on evidence. The only evidence-based credible theory to date is that Maddie died in the apartment and Gerry McCann (or a male friend) removed her body and the parents (and some or all of their friends) have not been honest about the happenings of that evening. This is the theory that is held by myself and Sr. Amaral.
The recent media reports are so incredibly idiotic I can only hope it is a continuation of the abominable state of the press today and not yet another sign that Scotland Yard, now reaching the 10 million pound mark in conducting this supposed review of the case, is horrifically incompetent or extremely corrupt.







The Murderer of Madeleine McCann
It has been a long six years for Kate and Gerry McCann. After the Portuguese police bungled the investigation of the kidnapping of their daughter, Madeleine, who was abducted from their vacation flat in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, the McCanns have endured being made suspects in their own daughter's disappearance and then suffered years of fruitless searching by their own private investigators, never coming any closer to finding out what had happened to their daughter.
In 2011, The Met (New Scotland Yard) launched Operation Grange, spending two years and nearly ten million pounds following every lead and tip generated by the PJ and the McCann's PIs post-the-evening of May 3rd, making absolutely no progress at all.
But, in a stunning turnabout just as the McCann's libel trial against Goncalo Amaral comes to a close, Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard has uncovered who kidnapped Madeleine McCann and what they have done with her, according to an unidentified source of Bollux Media.
When Operation Grange reached no conclusion after an incredible number of man hours and money had been frittered away, Redwood decided to use a surprising investigative technique; he would go back to the actual events of the evening of the crime. Although he was unable to get the cooperation of the parents of the missing child or cooperation of any of the friends who dined together with the parents on the night Madeleine went missing, he was able to get the cooperation of the television media and a bunch of actors (including a very capable porn star) and scripted a very believable version of what occurred that evening. Redwood thrilled the public with his incredible breakthrough moment in the case wherein he disclosed that the Tanner sighting was really that of a vacationer who was wandering about in circles with his child trying to locate his apartment which he had misplaced. He then went on to reveal that the Smith sighting of Gerry McCann was now the correct sighting and he was looking forward to the public telling him who they thought it was now that they could show the world the sketches the McCanns had hidden for years.
Lots of callers identified Gerry McCann, but a couple of folks said it was a burglar they knew from the neighborhood and the pieces fell into place. Redwood discovered that a flurry of phone calls had been made by a three man burglary ring that this man was a part of, a number before 10 pm and another number of phone calls a couple of hours later.
Today, Scotland Yard detectives have interviewed the men of the burglary ring and through a clever investigative interrogation method in which the men were asked what they thought a bunch of burglars might have done if they were involved in the crime, they related the following story:

Just after Gerry and Kate's friend looked in on the McCann children, one of the burglars entered the apartment through the unlocked sliding door. Although he knew the layout of the apartment and that any valuables would likely be either in the living room or in the large bedroom, for some reason he felt drawn to go into the smaller of the bedrooms first. When he entered the room, a small girl awoke and began screaming. Without thinking of the possible results, the startled burglar put his hand over her mouth. Being a small child, his hand accidentally covered her nose as well and after a short time, the girl stop breathing. Thinking he had quieted the girl, the burglar released his hand and then made the horrific discovery that he had smothered the child. Panicked, he called his fellow burglars on their cells to ask what he should do and they decided the best plan would be to remove the child from the flat so as to leave no evidence of what had happened. One of the burglars posted himself at the back of the flat, the other in the front, and the burglar inside raised the window. When all was clear, he passed the deceased child through the window to the burglar waiting outside. Having worn gloves to the burglary, no prints were left in the apartment.
The burglar receiving the body of Madeleine then carried the child back to his Praia da Luz flat passing by the Smith family on the way. One of the burglars went to retrieve his boat and the other patrolled the area between the flat and the beach. During this time, the trio kept in touch by cell phone. When the streets became quiet enough to quickly move Madeleine's body from the apartment to the boat, this action was completed and Madeleine's body was disposed at sea.

Scotland Yard is hoping the Portuguese prosecutor will arrest the three suspects and take the case forward to court; however, they feel this is unlikely because the Portuguese prosecutor claims there is insufficient evidence due to the PJ mishandling the case for six years. There is no physical evidence remaining after all this time, and there is a refusal on the part of the suspects to make a full confession.
Kate and Gerry McCann have issued a statement thanking Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard for absolving them of any wrongdoing in the death of their daughter and uncovering a story of her death which is not too awful. They also want the public to know that The Fund will remain active until Madeleine's body is found and brought home for a proper interment.
SY: Burglar One, where were you the night of May 3, 2007 when Madeleine McCann disappeared?
B1: Dude, that was six years ago. Beats me.
SY: Well, we have you on your phone in Praia da Luz.
B1: Okay, then, I was in Praia da Luz.
SY: Were you in the McCann's apartment?
B1: No.
SY: Were you burglarizing apartments in the area that night?
B1: No.
SY: You made a bunch of phone calls to your two burglar friends late that evening.
B1: Yeah, so? Probably we were trying to decide which pub to meet up at.
SY: I don't think that was it. I think you had kidnapped Madeleine McCann and needed help dealing with the child.
B1: What have you been smoking? What is a burglar going to do with a child? Our fence isn't going to give us money for her. And no stuff was even taken from that apartment.
SY: We think you killed the child accidentally because she saw you and then, in a panic, you took her with you. You didn't get around to stealing anything but Madeleine's body.
B1: Are you actually serious? Like a three-year-old seeing me in the dark will be able to pick me out of a lineup. You have got to be kidding! Like I would prefer a murder charge over just getting the hell out of there.
SY: Well, we have evidence you took her.
BI: Oh, please. How dumb do you think I am? I read the police reports on this case. They are online. The only evidence you have from the apartment is the fact your British dogs found that someone lay dead in the apartment for a couple of hours and, if that is so, no burglar had anything to do with it.
SY: Well, we don't believe our dogs. We believe the McCanns.
B1; But, they have lied about stuff and changed their story a bunch of times.
SY; Yeah, well, that doesn't matter. What matters is your two burglar friends have told me you were the one who actually kidnapped the child.
B1: Oh, yeah? I doubt that, because after the McCanns leaked to the media that Scotland Yard wanted to arrest us, we got together and had some beers and a good laugh over what we were all going to say in the upcoming surprise interrogations.
SY; Well, yeah.....um....yeah....well, don't leave town. We might want to talk to you again.
Transcript of Burglar Two: Same as the first
Transcript of Burglar Three: Same as the first



What indeed is wrong with the dead black suspect that Portugal was investigating? I have been ruminating over that question since Scotland Land reportedly stated that they were pursuing a different line of investigation than the Portuguese team. Has this raised the public eyebrow in any way? It struck me as odd.....a different line of investigation...in what way could it be different unless one agency is looking at abduction and the other is not? However, Scotland Yard had pronounced from the beginning that the McCanns were not suspects and it would seem that Portugal was following suit. So how could these two agencies be following two different lines of investigation? Was one pursuing information that Madeleine was kidnapped by a sex ring and the other looking for a family who wanted a child? Where would each have gotten such strong leads that the agencies would have such an exclusive direction and each had totally eliminated any other?

I have worked many cases where detectives in one department had been exploring two or more investigative directions because there were no strong leads; they were making sure to investigate all possibilities until they could rule all but one of those directions out. But this is not what Scotland Yard was suggesting; they were insinuating Portugal was not looking in the correct direction at all. It could be true; I have had that experience myself when I have come in to work a cold case with a police department and I found that the detectives on the case were totally ignoring the evidence and following some gut intuition, trying to fit the evidence to the theory rather than the theory to the evidence. This is what it appears Scotland Yard was saying; we are focusing on proper leads and Portugal is off on a fool's errand.
But, then, we hear about Scotland Yard pursuing three burglars who made phone calls following the disappearance of Madeleine...wait, isn't that the same theory as Portugal? Wasn't their dead black guy a burglar who made phone calls on the evening of May 3, 2007? Isn't that exactly the same line of investigation, just different suspects?
So, now, I have to wonder, what is wrong with the dead black guy? He is the perfect patsy; he is a criminal, he is black (and we all know in a still racist world how that helps make the case), and he is dead; all the things a police department could want in a fall guy....I have seen that exact kind of suspect made us of in other criminal investigations to close a case which was never going to be properly solved.
So, why doesn't Scotland Yard like the dead, black man? I can only come up with only three reasons:
1) Scotland Yard can't have Portugal solve the case after reopening it just a few months ago when they have spent ten million dollars and two years working on the review.
2) Portugal can't solve the case because that is for Scotland Yard to do; after all, the Portuguese police have been proven to be incompetent and they must remain incompetent while the top police agency in the world, Scotland Yard, comes in to save the day.
3) The black guy just doesn't look a bit like Gerry McCann.

It is Number Three that is most important of all. If we think back to Crimewatch, Andy Redwood made a huge deal out of knocking down the Tanner sighting which was, I believe, a surprise to many of us because that was Gerry McCann's alibi. When Redwood did so, it gave hope to some that there was some clever ruse being played out by Scotland Yard to finally nail the McCanns and their Tapas friends. I also wished this would be so, but considering how Scotland Yard had behaved to that point with their investigation, I was not particularly inspired to believe justice would eventually win out; I still fully believed the review was going to be nothing but a whitewash in the end. I did wonder, however, why Scotland Yard ruled out the Tanner sighting with a clearly bogus vacationer walking in the wrong direction and publicized the e-fits of the Tanner sighting when this would throw the suspicion back on Gerry McCann.
Now, I think I know. I know why they did this and why it can't be a dead, black guy....because he does not look like Gerry McCann.
What are the odds that one of the three burglars does look like Gerry McCann? Looks enough like Gerry McCann to finally have an explanation for the Smith sighting? It won't matter that burglars don't kidnap children, it doesn't matter if it can't be proven that the burglars had any part in the disappearance of Maddie McCann; it only matters that one of the burglars looks close enough to the man in the composite drawing to be the guy the Smiths saw. I have to wonder whether a good portion of the time the Yard spent in this review was simply flipping through Portuguese mug shots looking for someone who looks similar enough to Gerry and lives close enough to Praia da Luz to serve their purpose. The Smith sighting is the one loose end that needs to be eliminated and a suspect who looks enough like Gerry and is a believable candidate to have committed the crime of abducting Maddie is what is needed to wrap up this whole charade with a pretty, little bow.

Proof is not necessary; just doubt and the word of a well-respected police agency. It remains to be seen whether we eventually see photos of the burglars and if we do, whether Scotland Yard has accomplished a bait-and-switch trick that will fool enough of the public to put the case to rest once and for all.

We have breaking news from Bollux Media. Portuguese authorities have touched the envelope in which there is a request from Scotland Yard to allow them to interview three Praia da Luz burglars who were in the town on the night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance and made a flurry of phone calls in the hours following the child going missing. Bollux Media will keep on top of the progress of the letter and as soon as the Portuguese authorities open the envelope, we will disseminate this valuable information to all the media outlets so they can immediately inform the public of this vastly important progress in Scotland Yard's investigation into what happened to little Madeleine McCann.
While we await the next huge advance in Scotland Yard's multimillion pound review of the one and only missing child in the world that matters, Bollux Media was able to land an exclusive interview with Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard who is on the very secretive road to breaking this case. He has asked us not to use his name in this interview so he will be identified in this article as "Unidentifed Source." We met in a small pub at noon somewhere in the middle of London right across the street from Scotland Yard

BM: Mr. Unidentified Source, we know you are attempting to move in on three new suspects in the Madeleine McCann case, three men who clearly thought they had gotten away with a crime six years ago.
US: THAT IS RIGHT!!!! THE PJ NEVER INTERVIEWED THEM BUT NOW WE ARE GOING TO SWOOP IN ON THESE THREE MEN AND SHOCK THEM WITH OUR DISCOVERY!!!

BM: That is fantastic, US. Do you think your interviews will get them to give up information about what they did with Madeleine?
US: YOU BET THEY WILL!! THEY WILL BE SO STUNNED WHEN WE SHOW UP, THEY WILL SPILL THE BEANS! WE WILL INTERVIEW EACH OF THESE MEN SEPARATELY SO THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT!

BM: Do you think they have a clue that you know who they are?
US: ABSOLUTELY NOT!! THESE THREE BURGLARS WHO WERE IN PRAIA DA LUZ ON MAY 3, 2007 AND MADE A BUNCH OF PHONE CALLS AFTER 10 PM, HAVE NO IDEA THEY HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THEIR CELL PHONE RECORDS!!

BM: That's just fantastic police work, US. Do you think they will be physical evidence after all this time?
US: SOME EVIDENCE WILL STILL BE THERE OVER THE YEARS IN THEIR POSSESSION AND WHEN WE GO IN TO ARREST THEM, THEY WON'T HAVE TIME TO GET RID OF IT!!

BM: Well, thanks for the interview, Mr. US. We will be waiting to hear about the imminent arrests of these three burglars in Portugal and the closure of this sad, unsolved case.
US: YOU ARE WELCOME, BM. NOW, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK. PLEASE WALK IN FRONT OF ME SO THAT CLARENCE MITCHELL DOESN'T SEE ME ON OUR WAY OUT.



Reservoir Dogs
Bollux Media has just intercepted a phone call between Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard and Portuguese authorities and astounding information was gleaned from the conversation.
What Bollux Media knows now, knows for sure, knows unquestionably, is the following:
Scotland Yard would like the bank records of the three burglars (ex-Ocean Club employees) for the days following the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann and they want to search the apartments of these three burglars as well.

Firstly, they are hoping to find Madeleine's clothing still in the hamper....well, you know, men are slow about getting the wash done or throwing out the trash.
Secondly, Scotland Yard wishes to bring in cadaver dogs because Madeleine clearly had to be dead to be carried so listlessly through the streets of Praia da Luz (the burglars would have had no time to drug the child). But, anyway, if the dogs hit on cadaverine in one of the apartments or cars of the burglar suspects, those dogs can be trusted, unlike those incompetent canines that alerted at the McCann's apartment and car.
Thirdly, Andy Redwood is hoping to find a large transaction in the bank accounts of one of the burglars that would prove they sold the dead child.....wait, that doesn't make much sense.

Okay, so if the McCanns admit they drugged their kids, then the burglars could have taken a live child from the flat and sold that live child to some sex ring or to some lonely couple that they just happen to knowledge of even though they never had stolen a child before and didn't plan to steal one that night. You know, criminals have all kinds of connections for emergencies like this and they also don't think about getting cash for their stolen goods or keeping such money hidden; they ask for a check or immediately deposit big sums of money in their bank accounts. Right, and......

....... and, anyway, those leads are really hot.
This exclusive report and interview brought to you by Bollux Media and


Please Report This Psycho Mom to Child Protection
A new "story" has appeared in those rags that call themselves "newspapers," that of a woman who almost had her little daughter kidnapped by gypsies in the Algarve. These poor excuses for journalism went ahead a printed a story so ridiculous, they should be ashamed of spreading tales of a lunatic, more correctly, a woman who exhibits "Munchausen Syndrome" - a psychiatric disorder in which a psychopathic female makes up stories of people doing things to her - stalking her, attacking her, raping her, etc. (sometimes it can be phony diseases assailing her but usually it is humans) - and, worse, this is a woman who exhibits "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" - the same disorder but the woman will claim these things are happening to her child (sometimes she privately abuses her child to give her symptoms) - this woman needs to be reported to social services, not given space in a "news" article.

Let me break down her story told most recently here in The Epoch Times:
Madeleine “Maddie” McCann has been missing since 2007 but now a mother is saying that a week after the child disappeared, kidnappers may have tried to take her child after restaurant staff spiked her drink in Algarve, Portugal.
A week after Maddie disappeared? The gypsies already have gotten a child, police are swarming the area, but they then decide this is a good time to grab another child?
Oh, for God's sake, The Epoch Times can't even plagiarize from The Mirror properly.....it was six weeks before Maddie was kidnapped in a town thirty miles away in Albufiera. So, this was a failed kidnapping which the gypsies learned from and the employed better methodology by the time they struck in Praia da Luz.
The 30-year-old mother, who was not identified, told Scotland Yard investigators that “gypsy” restaurant staff members spiked her drink and then attempted to carry away her 1-year-old daughter to a car, reported The Mirror.

These gypsies decide to commit a kidnapping in full view of tourists and employees and the parent and grandparent of the child which is clearly so much easier than simply grabbing the child on a quiet street, tossing her in a car directly and driving off.
She said she told the Find Madeleine campaign of the incident but they were too busy.
Even the McCanns thought the story so stupid they couldn't even pretend to believe it. Actually, I am sure she never actually called the Find Madeleine campaign, but she had to say she gave some halfhearted attempt at some point in time to report a gang that steals children; otherwise, it would seem she didn't care about any children but her own and that would be narcissistic.
Police in the U.K. are now reportedly set to interview the woman in the hopes that it will reveal more about the McCann case.

Probably just the highly qualified "journalist" saying this, but considering the other great "leads" being followed by Scotland Yard, maybe it is actually true.
“It was terrifying, like something out of a film,” she told the Daily Record. “From the first day of the holiday, a young dark-haired man kept popping up wherever we went. We would arrive at a restaurant and he’d show up minutes later as though he had been tipped off.
She added: “It was low season so everywhere was quiet. There were about three or four restaurants open but the same staff would show up where we were. They all knew the dark-haired man. It felt like the Eastern European mafia was watching us.”
I am sure it was out of a film, the one she was creating in her head. The woman should avoid becoming a screenwriter. Let's see.....every place she goes she sees the same guy....I guess he has no clue how to tail someone and not be seen doing it....send him back to spy school....and then the same staff would show up in all the restaurants she ate in.....this is a heck of a coordinated effort between all those establishments....they had to switch out the regular waiters for their spies every time this woman and her kid get hungry. The woman says it felt like the whole of the Eastern European mafia (are they gypsies?) were watching her......ah, such grandiosity! Doesn't she wish.......

“On the third night the man walked up to us, and chatted to us – but all about my daughter. He was obsessed, playing with her, stroking her hair. It was very over-familiar. He kept touching her and commenting on her blonde hair.”
She said the man was about 25, adding that her mother said that it’s not usual for a young man to be so interested in children.
“There was a middle-aged couple who had served us before at another place. They were all over my daughter,” she told the Mirror. “They told me they missed their children in Uzbekistan and begged me to let them hold her.”
People being friendly are terribly suspicious. Let me remember that the next time I say, "Oh, your baby is so cute!" I will be led away in handcuffs.
She was served a drink, which she claims was spiked with a drug.
“Within half an hour I felt really dizzy,” she said. “I knew I’d been drugged. It was only us in the restaurant and I felt vulnerable. I stood up and told mum we had to leave. As I did, the woman lifted my daughter out of her high chair and walked to the door.”
She managed to grab her daughter and run off.

I guess they didn't have enough Rohypnol to spike Grandma's drink, too, and did so bad a job of spiking Mom's that she still had the strength to pull the child out of the strong gypsy kidnapper's hands just prior to being run out to that idling waiting car. What a woman! She single-handedly saved her daughter from a horrible fate.
Then she didn't bother to report it to Portuguese police. Well, you know, she probably didn't think of the story until after she got home....I mean until now.......now, that really stupid journalists are willing to print ludicrous stories from psychos.



BREAKING NEWS! Bollux media has located the Algarve Bogeyman and, over a cup of expresso and a few smokes, the Algarve Bogeyman has come clean about his criminal activities
Bollux: So, I notice you are wearing a shirt that is very similar to the one that Scotland Yard has released to the media! Don't you think that is a bit dangerous?
Algarve Bogeyman Shirt
AB: No, I am not worried. They can't arrest anyone over here in Portugal and after a few months have passed, they will be back looking for gypsies or burglars.
Bollux: You kind of look like a gypsy.
AB: Right, yeah, true. Well, they will be looking for a sex ring, then.
Bollux: A couple of times you weren't wearing any shirt at all! Were you worried at that time your shirt would be recognized.
AB: No, I was just washing it. Some of the little girls told me I was smelly.
Bollux: Ah, I understand. So, according to reports, you broke in to twelve vacation homes while the the parents were sleeping in the next room.
AB: No, I actually never broke in. Those British parents always leave their front doors unlocked, so I just walked in.
Bollux: And you sexually assaulted five of these children.
AB: Not really, I just sort of looked at them. Wouldn't you think there would have been a big deal made if I was raping little tourist girls in the Argarve?
Bollux: You spoke to some of the parents. Why?
AB: I wanted to practice my English.
Bollux: Is that why you only broke into....excuse me...accessed the flats of British families and not those of Swedes, Germans, or the Dutch?
AB: Sure, that makes sense.
Bollux: So, according to trusted media reports, you sexually assaulted those five girls between 2004 and 2006, maybe took Madeleine in 2007, and then went on breaking into apartments until 2010 but didn't molest any more little girls and then stopped.
AB: Okay.
Bollux: So, did you take Madeleine?
AB: Sort of. When I came through the open front door, I saw Maddie behind the sofa and I pulled her out. She was dead I don't like 'em dead. I got worried that because I had touched her that I could have left DNA and then be accused of killing her, so I picked her up and ran off with her. I dumped her in the back of the trash truck I work on.
Bollux: But, unlike the other crimes where you hit between 2 and 5 in the morning, this was in the evening. Why would you have a trash truck with you?
AB: Oh, right. Yeah, so I took Maddie down toward the beach and dumped her in the sea.
Bollux: The Smith family saw you? They sure got their description wrong.
AB: Well, you know how bad witnesses can be.
Bollux: True. So, what are your plans now that Scotland Yard is looking for you?
AB: I'm going to have another cup of coffee and a cigarette.
This nearly accurate and mostly truthful report was brought to you by Bollux Media.



Today I want to address some of the questions I have received about what is going on with Scotland Yard's handling of the Madeleine McCann review and DCI Andy Redwood's public appearances sharing the Met's progress on the case, his disemination of information, and his outreach to the public for help.

Q) Is Redwood being a very clever fellow, eliminating all other possibilities one by one (thereby leaving what is left to be the real scenario) and then swooping in on the McCanns? Is he also trying to unnerve them in the process, part of his plan to get them to break down and confess?
A) I wish, but no. I find such investigative strategy hard to swallow or believe, especially since it is so public, so drawn out, and so expensive. First of all, presenting a myriad of possibilities that you actually cannot eliminate means you have not proved that one of them couldn't have happened. It could have been gypsies, it could have been a lone sex predator, it could have been a burglary gone bad with the accidental killing of a child, it could have been a sex ring posing as charity workers, it could have been some insane rich couple hiring a kidnapper to bring them a child of their choice, it could have been an Arab Sheik wishing to add a blonde child to his growing little girl harem, it could have been a psychotic man who thought Maddie was he beloved dead child come to life...and on and on. The only way you can really eliminate certain scenarios is to have absolute ones that can be disproved with evidence and even then, it doesn't prove that the most likely one left is in fact the correct one, it just that maybe you should spend more time focusing on that likelihood.
Secondly, all this does is actually give the McCann's support for their theory that someone abducted Madeleine. Think about it: every time Redwood opens his mouth, he is proclaiming that abduction is the theory he is basing all his investigative efforts on; he is reaffirming that the McCann's are not involved in the crime and there is no need to go back and reinvestigate any of the Tapas 9.
And, finally, it makes no sense to spend millions to investigate pointless avenues when you simply can go straight to the evidence and put your efforts into reanalyzing what is right in front of your face.

Q) Could the Algarve serial predator have taken Maddie?
A) Sure. I have always believed that if the McCanns were not involved in the disappearance of their daughter, then it was most likely, 99% most likely, that a lone local child sex predator grabbed her, sexually assaulted her, and murdered her within hours. Murat was not a bad suspect due to his somewhat odd behavior, his familiarity with the area, and the location of his mother's home just down the street. He was a great red herring and the police were not unreasonable in making him a suspect in the early days. And, no, Madeleine is not buried on his property.

Q) Since Andy Redwood just recently admitted that Madeleine might have died in the apartment, isn't he giving credence to cadaver and blood dogs?
A) Not at all. He simply is "admitting" that Madeleine might not be alive, that she may have been killed during the commission of a crime - during sexual assault, abduction, or just to prevent her from screaming because she saw someone in the process of burglarizing the apartment. She would have been only dead for seconds or minutes in those scenarios and have left nothing for the dogs to hit on. Admitting this can eliminate the need to search for Maddie endlessly throughout the world and respond to the many future sightings that will surely pop up from time to time; one can lay blame on a tolerably believable dead or incarcerated suspect and put the case to rest because Maddie can no longer be rescued.

Q) What is the motive of Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood then? If Redwood does not have some brilliant plan to finally bring down the McCanns nor is he really going to catch a predator who abducted Maddie, what is this whole charade about?
A) Well, we are back to some bizarre political issues which I am unable to address. What is clear to me is the evidence still points to the McCanns, the "review" is a sham because even if Scotland Yard leaned away from the McCanns as being involved in the disappearance of their daughter, their incredible refusal to even review the physical and behavioral evidence from the crime scene and days following is astounding and unprofessional and is a standard procedure if to do no more than to clear the parents and search for overlooked clues. Likewise, their astonishing expenditures chasing foolish leads also makes little sense. Redwood's Crimewatch fabrication and his recent outreach to the public for more information on a suspect that already has been investigated by the PJ lead me to believe he is simply playing a part in the drama to which he has been assigned and, being a bit of a ham, he is actually enjoying the role.

It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past. We can see quite clearly that this plan is working for the media has overwhelmingly presented all the new theories and "developments' with enthusiasm. I have been around long enough to see this kind of game played out before, albeit in a bit milder form, and it works. Eventually, the truth gets buried and those that fight to keep it alive are labeled conspiracy theorists and nuts.
My only hope is that at least Gonçalo Amaral will win his day in court, that Portugal will somehow stand by the law and keep this avalanche of revisionist history from crushing truth and justice. I feel less then confident that the outcome will be what I wish and this whole episode will simply be sealed and delivered into history as the victors desire, but I still keep my fingers crossed for the smallest chance of a miracle.

  
::sigh:: A lot of really nice people desperately want to believe that DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are about to shock the world with a brilliant check and mate that is going to see Kate and Gerry McCann led off in handcuffs, arrested for the death and disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann. In fact, they are so desperate for there to be a proper resolution to this case, they actually find sense in the twisted logic of some fellow who spends a good portion of his pro-Scotland Yard blog post slandering me and mocking my grammar abilities (he doesn't recognize a typo when he sees one...but, whatever). Normally, I don't respond to haters (especially if they have something useful to say outside of denigrating me) but I want to respond to the Kool-Aid he is selling to hopeful folk who normally don't believe in fairy tales.

Yes, of course he (Redwood) is eliminating all other possibilities - that is his job and any scenario he overlooks and fails to eliminate could be used by the McCanns in any future trial to demonstrate police incompetence and could be part of their (undoubtedly extensive) defence.
BWAHAHAHA!
Dude, it's NOT a British case! It doesn't matter what the heck Scotland Yard detectives do or don't do because it is not going to be an issue in a Portuguese court of law. Secondly, following solid evidentiary leads may well support a prosecutorial case as far as not leaving the door open for the defence to shed doubt on the police work, but ignoring all the evidence and spending a silly amount of time and money on totally unrelated leads is a sign of incompetence; the defence could completely destroy the detectives in court by pointing out that they clearly had so little viable evidence against the defendants that they found it necessary to follow-up on every ridiculous tip and possible alternative scenario.
The solution is determined from the evidence, not Pat Brown's rather less than exhaustive list of options.

I had commented that you can't eliminate every possible scenario because there can always be another ridiculous scenario someone can dream up that could be the cause for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, this fellow is claiming here that it isn't about how many scenarios one can come up with but determining which scenario is correct from the evidence. Evidence? Ummm...yeah, that is the evidence from the apartment and the Tapas 9, so why would one need to eliminate a dozen scenarios to which the evidence does not point? Again, eliminating a whole bunch of scenarios is pointless because this means the detectives are not working FROM the crime scene evidence. In fact, all they are appearing to do is to be searching for that one scenario they can link BACK to the crime (confession, body on property, Maddie's clothing.etc,....but you can bet it will in the end just be confession or circumstantial evidence). This proves, yet again, Scotland Yard is indicating that they have already determined that evidence from the scene and the Tapas 9 has no validity.

Who says that they haven't reviewed the physical behavioural evidence from the crime scene?
Really? Didn't Redwood state that the McCanns are not suspects and that this was an abduction?
Yes, he did, so this could mean only one of two things: one, he is ignoring the evidence, or, two, he is lying about ignoring the evidence. It appears my detractor believes Redwood is telling a piles of lies in order to lull the McCanns into a sense of complacency and then, somehow, come up with enough evidence (from where?) to the arrest the duo....yeah, some awesomely clever police strategy that has no precedent in all of police investigative history.

Alright, let us take a look at how he is trying to trap the McCanns.
He did a fake reconstruction on Crimewatch during which time he bolstered the McCanns' veracity by "proving" Tannerman to be real and not a kidnapper cooked up by Tapas 9 conspirators.

Ah, yes, you say, but, this now means Tannerman can't be Gerry's alibi! Redwood eliminated Gerry's alibi and then he focused right in on the guy seen by the Smith family, the one they say they think is Gerry. Doesn't that mean that Scotland Yard is cannily pointing to Gerry as the one seen carrying off a Maddie-like child at a time when he has no real alibi?
Not at all. Think back to the statement by Redwood that the McCanns are not suspects and that this is an abduction. He is TELLING the world that the man the Smiths saw that looked like Gerry cannot possibly be Gerry, so don't call in any tips that would implicate Gerry McCann. If you saw that same man come out of the McCann flat and walk directly toward the point where the Smiths witnessed a man carrying a little girl, it doesn't matter because you will not be believed; you are a fabricator or a McCann hater; it is not Gerry, so don't say it is. Hence, right up front, Redwood has prevented any and all information that might have corroborated the Smith sighting as Gerry from being brought to their attention. Right there is massive proof the McCanns are not being considered in the mix. In fact, it is clear as a bell that Redwood is fishing for a look-alike that will clear Gerry, another version of Tannerman, a man carrying his kid home from some location near the McCanns' flat. It doesn't matter whether anyone really does call in with such a person; Scotland Yard can just say they have received information clearing Gerry just as they did with this supposed Tannerman bloke, the guy carrying his child in the wrong direction (toward rather than away from the creche).

All I see happening with these Scotland Yard shenanigans is an attempt to clear the McCanns bit by bit and, in the process, completely discredit the PJ by constantly pointing out that they did not conduct a thorough investigation, which is why Scotland Yard's investigators have to go back over ever bit of information and every lead (with the exception of the actual evidence); the PJ did NOT find Tannerman, they did not find the Gerry look-alike, they did NOT investigate Tractorman, Binman, the British pedophile, or those charity men.....the PJ simply failed to clear the McCanns properly and they failed to follow-up on the abduction theory with due diligence.
THIS is the reality of what is being played out. It is clear as a bell to me yet I feel a need to ring that bell one more time so folks can see that Santa Claus does not exist and neither does an honest Scotland Yard review. Our only hope lies in the PJ, that they decide to truly conduct their own investigation following the evidence and not the directives of politicians, that they decide truth and justice should prevail and not a myriad of agendas that have nothing to do with what really happened to Madeleine McCann i Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.



Sept ans et sept millions de livres sans le moindre indice d'enlèvement
Seven Years and Millions Spent and Still no Evidence of Abduction – 03.05.2014

May 3, 2014 marks the seventh anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the seventh year that no evidence of abduction has been found. Seven years of the McCann's private detectives' spending millions of donated pounds have netted zero evidence of abduction and three years of Scotland Yard's team of detectives spending millions of taxpayer's pounds have netted zero evidence of abduction. Any successful business CEO would say that millions of pounds were wasted on a fool's errand. And this is precisely the cold truth that the McCanns do not want the public to recognize. In fact, the McCanns, their team of private detectives, and Scotland Yard have done their best to steer the public away from the fact that all evidence pointing to what happened to Madeline McCann is contained in the Portuguese police files and it all hones in on the physical evidence in the McCann apartment and their rental car, the findings of the cadaver and blood dogs, the McCanns themselves, and the seven friends that they dined with at the Tapas Restaurant.


In fact, all the detectives - the McCann's hired PIs and Scotland Yard's finest - have purposely ignored the most basic rule of investigations and criminal profiling; to work from evidence to theory and not make up a theory and hope it turns into evidence at some point in time. In Maddie's case, it seems Scotland Yard is concocting theories based on nothing more than the abduction fantasy they wish to purport and then they are attempting to link these various scenarios back to the Madeleine, May 3rd, 2007, and Praia da Luz. For example, the latest concocted scenario that DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard have pushed into the media in time for the seventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance is not based on any evidence from the Madeleine McCann case. Instead, they found some stories about a creepy guy who supposedly slipped into British vacationers' flats in the Algarve over a number of years and proceeded to gaze at or do something of some sort to young white girls. Of course, we have no actual evidence of what exactly happened and to whom because most of these alleged assaults were not reported to police and those that were, well, we don't know exactly what was reported. We do know that no one was arrested, charged, and convicted.


Next, Redwood goes public with the story and now, supposedly, a young woman has came forward to say she was sexually assaulted by a man of the same description in Praia da Luz just before Madeleine went missing. Naturally, we have no proof this woman actually exists any more than we have proof that some vacationer exists who was carrying his child from the creche and crossed the path of Jane Tanner. These folks never came forward until Redwood reached out to the public with the exact details of what he wished someone to call in with and whether anyone with credibility actually called in or whether it was just an attention seeker or whether no one ever did call with relevant information and Redwood is just claiming so, we will probably never know. What I do know, however, is that Redwood appears to be building a theoretically believable scenario bit by bit. First we have a pedophile in the Algarve targeting young British girls in their vacation flats, then we have one attacked in Praia da Luz, and next thing we will have is a couple tips that a couple people saw a smelly man wearing said rare shirt watching the McCann's flat the day Maddie went missing. Then, it can be assumed since the guy was a pedophile loser, he abducted and killed Madeleine and disposed of her body in such a manner that it will not be recoverable. The man will either never be found or he will be conveniently dead. The McCanns will have their answer and the public will be satisfied with the cleverly devised, believable scenario. But, in actuality, there will be no evidence of any such man having abducted and killed Madeleine McCann. The only true evidence of what happened to Madeleine will still be in the Portuguese police files.


Hey, Gerry, Have You Still Got That Shovel for Us to Borrow? - 05.05.2014Bollux Media has just learned that DCI Andy Redwood is heading to Praia da Luz to dig up the town and countryside in an effort to find Madeleine who he recently admitted might be dead.
BM: Mr. Redwood, are you now convinced Maddie is no longer alive? That she isn't living happily with a family somewhere, gypsy or otherwise
AR: ::snorts::Well, come on, we might be daft here at Scotland Yard but we never really believed the child was living the good life somewhere out there.
BM: And you no longer think she could be held in a sex ring?
AR: Well, I guess that could be a theory but we have to wrap this case up....it's been three years already and we have come up with squat...we gotta solve it somehow.

BM: That makes sense. So are you now following the evidence trail? The fact that the cadaver dogs hit in the apartment and in the McCanns hire car and that Madeleine must have died on May 3rd and been taken off and buried?
AR: Hell, no! Good Lord, what an insane idea! For three years we have ignored all the physical and behavioral evidence; we aren't going to start focusing on that now.

BM: Then why are you going to dig up Praia da Luz?
AR: Well, if we want to close this case in the near future, that child needs to be dead and buried. We would have to use the theory of a local pedophile and such a person wouldn't keep a child alive more than a few hours, so that would make Madeleine dead and buried nearby the fellow's house. So, we will focus on the area.
BM. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown has a theory that the cadaver dog evidence is valid and that would mean Maddie's body was moved from Praia da Luz to some other location by Gerry McCann. She believes Maddie might well be buried in an desolate area called Monte do Jose Mestre, the area just west of Praia da Luz where Gerry's phone pinged a number of times. In fact, she went to Portugal herself to analyze the case in person and she located this area right off the main road which is isolated enough to be able to bury a body without anyone noticing. She wrote a detailed description of her findings here.
AR: I don't care what that woman thinks: she's a nutter. We have no intention of reviewing the evidence like she did. We will not be visiting that location. We will just wander around Praia da Luz beaches and road shoulders with our radar machines.

BM: So, you aren't actually going to dig?
AR: Well, Gerry gave us his shovel, but I have heard the residents of Praia da Luz and those pesky local government officials aren't keen on us making a lot of holes in the area, so we may not have a chance to put it to use. We will just go through the motions of looking and then declare Maddie was probably dumped in the ocean.

BM: Okay, well, thanks, Mr. Redwood, for the update. I know you have said that Scotland Yard isn't going to give a running commentary on an open investigation or review or whatever it is, but we appreciate you giving us this interview and I am sure all the other British media outlets appreciate your openness in this matter as well.
AR: Most welcome.

This responsible and accurate bullshit was brought to you by Bollux Media and...


Why I am So Pessimistic about the MMC Case being Solved09.05.2014

It has always been my secret hope that the Judiciary Police (PJ) had reopened the Madeleine McCann case with new leads that would bolster the original investigation and Dr. Gonçalo Amaral's focus of investigation, that somehow Portugal would eventually fight back against the British faux review and bring a proper end to a seven year miscarriage of justice. However, I am feeling ill this morning after reading Joana Morais' translation of a recent news report from Portugal, sick to my stomach, while many who read it are rejoicing that this rare news out of Portugal is a good thing. Here is the translation of the article (with thanks to Joana for her tireless efforts to keep the English world informed of Portuguese media reports):



PJ about to discard English Police strongest lead that a predator of English girls has abductedMadeleine. Scotland Yard has asked for aerial photos of places in Praia da Luz and wishes to question eight “persons of interest”

by Marisa Rodrigues

The Judiciary Police (PJ) is about to discard the lead that has resulted in the reopening of the process in Portugal and that is Scotland Yard's main line of investigation. So far, there isn't any evidence to support the hypothesis that Madeleine was abducted by a sexual predator who attacked English children in the Algarve. This is the firmly held position of the team of inspectors from the North Directorate of the PJ who has reviewed the investigation process that was archived in 2008. After naming as probable suspect the late Euclides Monteiro, a former Ocean Club employee, the Portuguese investigators now believe that the intruder, in the cases that were reported to the authorities, could be British and that he does not reside in Portugal, since there were no new reports and those that were disclosed [seeMetropolitan Police site] only targeted children of that nationality. “A sex abuser is someone who acts compulsively. If he only acted in the summer and has never attacked again it's because he does not live here”, explained a source close to the process.



Yesterday, the day was marked by an aerial photo-reconnaissance in Praia da Luz of the areas where searches and excavations are planned, using a helicopter of the Portuguese Air Force paid by the British authorities and by a meeting between the police forces of the two countries at the PJ headquarters in Faro. One of the places where Scotland Yard wants to use the sniffer dogs and the georadar is on the 25 de Abrilstreet, in the vicinity of the Ocean Club and by the church. The area, which the helicopter overflew three times, was undergoing construction works when Madeleine disappeared seven years ago. If anything suspicious is detected, it will be excavated. Besides the searches, which were already allowed by the Public Prosecutor of Portimão, the letters rogatory also request for eight people to be questioned. Some used to work at the Ocean Club resort whilst others are not linked in any way. With all these initiatives, it seems likely that Scotland Yard has more than one line of investigation, of which the latest and most visible action yet indicates the hypothesis that the child was murdered and buried in Praia da Luz. When questioned, in Faro, DCI Andy Redwood refused to speak with the journalists.



Tension between the PJ and the English

The relationship between the police forces of the two countries is rather tense. The Judiciary Police has requested to the English police to stop disclosing information about the ongoing work in Portugal, otherwise they will not proceed with the steps that were requested. Scotland Yard wrote to the newspapers in the United Kingdom asking for “understanding”. in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition (page 13), May 9, 2014


Okay, what excites others that is not exciting me is the news that the PJ is discarding Scotland Yard's main line of questioning, a lead about a sex abuser of English girls in the Argave, a lead that was the cause of the Madeleine McCann case to be reopened. In fact, this revelation has crushed my hopes for any positive outcome and this is why: The fact that the PJ reopened the case based on some flimsy alleged weirdo in the area and not any real evidence is a sign that either the investigation by the PJ is politically influenced or they are incompetent (their incorrect profiling that a sex predator acts out of compulsion is frightening - sex predators are psychopaths and can control their behavior -and their conclusion that since he is compulsive and only strikes in the summer, he must be a Brit and not live in the Algarve troubles me: it could be that he is a teacher and only strikes during his months off or he only strikes when his wife is away or maybe he works in another country for a portion of the year - there could be numerous possibilities). This statement is a horrible blow to Dr. Amaral because this public admission that a sex predator is the reason the case was reopened only infers that the PJ do not believe Gonçalo Amaral was following the correct line of questioning.

The fact that they are now discarding this because they found no link to Madeleine is no big surprise considering all the original evidence does not point to an abduction and the PJ should know this. This does not, however, mean the PJ are going back to the McCann as the focus because if they were basing their investigation on the evidence, they wouldn't have gone down this sex predator/abduction road in the first place. Scotland Yard and the McCanns have just recently been running a media campaign of attacking the PJ which likely means they are going to claim that the PJ simply are giving up because they failed yet again to find the abductor of Madeleine McCann and now are preventing the British team from pursuing more leads (like searching people's homes without probable cause). This "dig" in Praia da Luz where the McCanns, the PJ, and Scotland Yard know the body is not, is only going to be used to prove all was done that could be done by Scotland Yard and as fodder for a claim that Maddie was killed during or after an abduction and her body was dumped in the ocean or that she was removed from Praia da Luz and buried who knows where. With one scenario, the McCanns can have closure and the other, we can keep looking for her ad nauseum and the fraudulent fund can continue to operate. No physical evidence will be found to link back to the McCanns, so they will be "in the clear."


When enough fires are fanned touting that Portugal has not cooperated with Scotland Yard and has prevented them from pursuing solid leads (those interviews and searches they were denied), and, furthermore, that the media has compromised the "investigation," fingers can be pointed at all the uncaring others and the McCanns can play the victims again, only this time, the case can be administratively closed with some statement from Scotland Yard of what likely happened to Maddie; in fact, the case will be closed administratively by both police agencies - the PJ and Scotland Yard -but this time with the abduction theory as the last lead followed, not the McCanns. In other words, the McCanns will have been effectively cleared by both countries as having anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter; Britain and the McCanns will be the victors and Portugal and Dr. Amaral, the collateral damage in whatever game of politics this whole farce is. The last tiny ray of wishful thinking for me is that Portugal is playing a totally deceptive game, that they lied when they said the series of alleged sexual assaults in the Algarve was the reason they reopened the case, that they only used that as an excuse to restart the investigation, that they planned to just play along with Scotland Yard until enough useless leads had been eliminated and then they planned to circle back to the evidence and the McCanns. I can wish that this methodology could be some big secret weapon, but my experience in working with police departments and their handling of cases and politics does not support this likelihood any more than the belief of some that Scotland Yard is playing a fantasticly expensive game that will end with the arrest of the McCanns or that the two departments are working together to accomplish a big coup in bringing the McCanns to justice.



Shh! Don't Tip Off the Suspects!
I have received a bit of heat in recent weeks for my opinion that Scotland Yard is not really doing a credible review of the Madeleine McCann case, that they appear to be involved in a whitewash of the McCanns' possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Maddie.
First of all, I want to state that I am behind all hardworking detectives out there in the world. It has been my mission to improve criminal profiling and crime scene analysis methodology FOR law enforcement, so that detectives may have more success in solving difficult cases. I also am behind all law enforcement agencies as they work to solve the next homicide case that lands on their desks even if the department screwed up the last case through lack of training or incompetence on the part of whatever detective got assigned to the case and even if the department mishandled the last case due to political pressure (even if it was one I worked on with them). I wish them the best on the next case and hope they do a better job with all their future investigations. I recognize that law enforcement suffers the same problems as any other profession; they are not perfect nor successful nor honorable one hundred percent of the time. Knowing that does not mean I don't support them when they do a good job or want to improve their ability to solve cases and bring justice to criminals and the community. I don't hold grudges against any police agency; I just want to see a brighter future for all homicide investigations.

As to Scotland Yard, they have done great work in the past and also not so great work, just like every other agency. I am sure they will do some great work in the future as well as not so great work in the future. For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.
1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.
2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate.
3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects.
4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television.
5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.
6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible.
7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.
8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case.
9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by.
10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.

Along with these ten reasons, if we need one more to seal the issue, it has to be AC Rowley's recent statement to papers:
"If you get any information ahead of our actions do not publish anything that may give suspects advance notice.”
Since Scotland Yard and DCI Andy Redwood have been shouting from the rooftops since they started working on the Madeleine McCann case, I hardly think any suspect couldn't have covered his tracks over these many months if he hadn't done so in the four years prior to the beginning of the Met review. The naming of the first supposed dig location and Rowley opening his own big mouth hardly encourages me to believe that Scotland Yard is doing everything they can to keep their interest in suspects in the case under wraps, unless you believe they have spend millions of dollars and massive man hours in misdirection and their real suspects are the McCanns. I don't believe this because nothing more than a short case review and a reinterview of the Tapas 9 and reexamination of the physical and behavioral evidence would have been necessary to turn the investigation back toward the McCanns.
No, all the actions of Scotland Yard can only mean one of two things: the present detectives (especially Andy Redwood) are dumb as a box of rocks (which I find hard to believe with the amount of obvious evidence in this case) or they are just going through the motions of rounding up suspects and eventually assigning probable guilt toward one party so that the sad case of little Madeleine McCann can finally be put to rest and the McCanns can be removed from under the cloud of suspicion that has been hovering over them for seven years.


How Much Power do You Have? How Much Power do the MCs Have? - 25.05.2014
After my last few posts questioning the validity of the Scotland Yard "review" into the McCann case, a number of people have responded with two issues: one, that the McCanns don't have that much power, and, two, we the people, have a great deal of power which means it would be ridiculous, with all the outrage about Madeleine not receiving justice, that Scotland Yard would try to dupe the citizens of the UK and the people of the world with a whitewash of the case. I say the McCanns have tremendous power and we have little to none.

Let's start with the McCanns: I cannot think of one case of a missing child in the world where so many huge names and politicians have stepped up to the plate to protect them from a police investigation. Yes, I have seen small examples of probably guilty parents of missing children getting some media attention (Baby Lisa's parents got a nice kiss-their-butt program by Dr. Phil, but, then again, Dr. Phil is an ethically challenged TV host who is all about ratings) but that is about it. However, when the McCanns made phone calls, people came running from high places to give them assistance. And they have continued to make phone calls and get assistance in the most incredibly huge ways.

Now, here is a test for us to take to prove both the power of the McCanns and our own power. As you are sitting here, tweeting with #McCann and commenting on McCann Facebook groups. close your computer and pick up your phone. Who are you calling about this case? Hmm.....uh.....yeah....no one. While the McCanns have dozens of numbers to call, numbers to people with power, you've got no one. Even I don't have too many useful numbers to call (a few TV producers who are not going to put me on to talk about the case just because I called; it doesn't work that way in TV unless I really had some scoop) and I can call my agent (I already did that because Gonçalo and I want write an english language book together on the McCann case: we couldn't get an American publisher to touch it as of yet due to lawsuit issues). Okay, so I have little influence; you probably have none. Every parent of a missing child I can think of to date - pretty much none. The McCanns - unprecedented and off-the-charts ability to get support for their cause.

So, if you think the public - and our online blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking - is going to sway Scotland Yard into doing the right thing, you are sadly mistaken. Why even the media almost always blocks comments about the case and unlike early media, I am no longer allowed to speak on the case on television. Someone is controlling the message....and it isn't us. If the McCanns ever going to go down, it will be because the political winds have changed and someone more powerful than them and their allies has changed the rules of the game.





The MCs and the Magician Trick of Misdirection – 27.05.2014

We have a new documentary, The McCanns and the Conman (read: another criminal gets paid by the media to lie to the public) airing June 4 on Channel 5 in the UK. It appears to be about Kevin Halligen's "abuse" of the McCanns and their fund, how he lived the highlife on money designated to find their daughter. The twist in this show is this; although the conman was ripping off the McCanns, he inadvertently did some good work, identifying the man the Smith's saw as the abductor (yeah, like the PJ hadn't already done that) and getting the Smiths to give a description that ended up as the now publicized e-fits, and somehow getting the Smiths supposedly to retract the statement that the guy was Gerry McCann (oh, wait, no, that won't be explained that way). Scotland Yard is said be basing their investigative strategy on Halligen's leads on this man (who, of course, is not Gerry).

I am sure we are going to hear in this program about how the emotionally fragile McCanns were taken advantage of by this snake oil salesman....blah, blah, blah....something that seems to happen a lot to the McCanns (considering they also hired the Metodo 3). But, one question I am sure they are not really going to address in this documentary is why the McCanns chose this crook; why they needed a man who claimed to be a superspy and not someone with proven skills in investigating missing children's cases, perhaps a profiler or PI or an agency with solid recommendations from missing children's organizations who would charge only 1/10 of the price Halligen got, something they should clearly have kept in mind since they were supposedly using the donations of well-meaning people; they had a responsibility to use the money wisely and honorably. Also, regardless of their own theories of what happened to Madeleine, parents of missing children usually put their trust in seasoned professionals, experts who really know how the abduction of children works, who took look for, and where. But, no, the McCanns chose whack jobs, flamboyant showman who seemed to have no prior experience for the job at all. How badly did the McCanns really want to find their missing daughter?

So, yeah, why Halligen? And Metodo 3? Why them? Why not a sound, reputable fellow that would properly conduct his investigation?

I would say it is because the McCanns did not want any investigator who would focus on Praia da Luz and the evidence. Like Scotland Yard, I believe the Number One requirement for the person they hired would be 1) accepting the "fact" Maddie had been abducted, and 2) accepting the "fact" that Maddie was not abducted by a local Praia da Luz sex predator.

I believe the most important part of what appears to be a faux investigation by the McCanns is that the private detectives make the hunt a worldwide one, not one local to Praia da Luz, that all searches for Maddie be directed far away from the town and environs. Through this worldwide search into international sex rings and children stolen for adoption, the concept of what might have happened to Madeleine would become something all people fear might happen to their own children and that what happened to the McCanns had nothing to really do with the neglect of their children, their possible use of medication, the apparent death of a child in their apartment, and anything else that occurred in Praia da Luz on May 3rd, 2007. In other words, LQOK AWAY! LQOK AWAY!

Misdirection is a common magician's trick. Fool people into not paying attention to what is really happening. In this case, make people look everywhere in the world for Maddie, everywhere but where she really is and where things really occurred, look for a live child in every country money can be sent in to the fund from instead of looking for a child buried quickly on Portuguese ground. I think this is the misdirection the McCanns have been involved with for seven years.

Hence, you can't hire an investigator who is going to focus on the evidence because doing so will only accomplish one of two things: that he will be focusing in on Praia da Luz and the Tapas 9 or he will at least be focusing in on Praia da Luz and a local sex predator Neither of those scenarios keep the money coming in for the "search" fund and both of them narrow the focus down to the night of May 3 and what happened right there in town.

For the McCann's objective, an ethically challenged PI was needed...to LQOK the other way. Finding such jokers is not difficult. There is a lot of money, endless money, to be made in looking the wrong direction because this is one way to assure an investigation can go on for years and years. For that matter, looking in all the wrong places keeps the fund going for years and years as well.

The McCanns' refusal to acknowledge the Smith sighting as valid and their attempt to hide this information from the public can only mean one thing: they didn't want the man carrying a little girl toward the beach to be identified. Either it was Gerry or these parents had no interest in finding the "abductor" of their child. I would like to hear the McCanns explain that, wouldn't you?

I think the title of this new documentary should have simply been called "The Con Artists."





I just don't get it. Really, I don't. I could pick a number of places in and around Praia da Luz for Scotland Yard to dig for Maddie's body or any remaining items that sniffer dogs might hit on, but that piece of wasteland is the one place I wouldn't waste my time with (no pun intended).
I could see the searching on the Rocha Negra, the large rock that soars above Pria da Luz and which is accessible from the beach. Kate said she had a dream that the abductor had put Maddie's little body up on this rock. It is also the location I believe Gerry may first have hidden Maddie on the night of May 3, in the sandy crevices between the rocks.
I could see Scotland Yard searching beach areas where on the night of May 3 there were overturned boats to temporarily hid a body under and a number of abandoned buildings and weedy areas one could hide a body for a time. All of these areas would be past the point where the Smiths saw a man carrying a child toward the beach.
But where Scotland Yard is looking is back toward the vacation apartment of the McCanns. This would mean the man the Smiths saw would have at some point, if he were indeed the "abductor" or Gerry himself, turn around and go back with the body of the child. Go back somewhere as in his own home or vacation flat because the man carrying the child wasn't also carrying a shovel.

(Update: I wrote this post prior to today's new. The search site is now be at a location at the left bottom of the map of Abril 25), a location where Smithman would pass the Smiths. If this is so, still a bad location to try to dig a grave (open to public eye and difficult terrain) but more likely because an abductor could have taken Maddie, passed the Smiths, and gone to his home (there are some homes down that way). Then, later he could have dug a grave and buried her in that wasteland spot nearer to the beach. Still unlikely he would have bothered with a grave at that location rather than just using it as a body dump site, but if he were worried about being connected by DNA, I would think he would have taken the body out of Praia da Luz to some barren area where no one could see him digging the grave). (Also, this invalidates any theory that the sniffer dogs were right about the McCann vehicle because the car would be unnecessary and unwise to use to bring her body to that spot for burial. It could be a temporary hiding place for Maddie and then she would have been moved to someplace like the Rocha Negra and then out of Pria da Luz, but I don't know what the police would find of use there now).

Then, after the police started crawling the area, the man would have had to go back out and start digging a hole in an area completely open to the view of anyone passing! Who in their right mind would choose a spot to spend time burying a body where everyone can see them do it? The standard rule for even body dumps is to go to a place you know you won't be seen. When it comes to burying a body, you really need isolation; either you bury in your own backyard (the Murat theory) or you find a desolate place like Monte do Jose Mestre (my theory of where Gerry may have buried Maddie) but you sure as hell don't pick a place that is open on all four sides to the street where anyone walking by will see you. I have walked by that spot and there is no way I would ever chance burying a body there.
So, unless this is simply a public charade of looking for a body near where some local abductor lives (maybe one of those burglary gang guys), I have no clue what could have led Scotland Yard to the one spot in Praia da Luz no one would even consider as a possible grave site to dispose of a missing child.
Also, for those who think that Scotland Yard is looking at the McCanns, if Scotland Yard were following the sniffer dog evidence (that hit on the McCann's hire car), they would be looking outside of Praia da Luz for a body, not right in it.

 
Really? That's all? Apparently, Isabel Duarte, the lawyer for the McCanns' libel suit is claiming this is what they want to know. Not only them, it seems, but Scotland Yard, too, is willing to settle for "just knowing."

A couple just heard their son was found hanging in an abandoned building days after he was last seen going out to retrieve his lost cell phone. They want to know what happened. A young man leaves a bar drunk and ends up in a river. The family wants to know what happened. A girl leaves home and she is found dead in a drug house. Her relatives want to know what happened. Why? Because they want to be sure there was no foul play and they want to know why their loved ones killed themselves, purposefully or accidentally.
When a small child "goes missing" and absolutely did not wander off and die of exposure, the family and police do not generally want to just "find out what happened." If there was an abduction, both the family and the police want the evildoer caught and imprisoned. If the police suspect the parents, they should want to bring justice to the child and remove fear from the community.

Most folks know that I strongly believe the Scotland Yard investigation is not basing their investigation on evidence, but working toward a story the public will accept. When I hear both the parents and the police just want to find closure and not necessarily justice, this only confirms, in my opinion, something just ain't right with what is going on in Praia da Luz.
I may find out I am wrong in a day or two and my mouth will drop open, but if what I am hearing or seeing is indicating that I am unfortunately correct with my analysis of the investigative methodology, then I think we are going to eventually hear that someone who lived or worked in PDL is a Gerry McCann look-a-like and there was information gleaned from the PJ files and from interviews with possible sex offenders or burglars that indicated Maddie was either buried nearby the suspect's home or place of employment or disposed of at sea. If they don't find her body, then the latter must be true.

By the way, one reason I find it hard to believe anyone specifically told them Maddie was buried in Praia da Luz is that Scotland Yard has asked to search more than one site. If an abductor had confessed, he would know where he put Maddie's body and if any of the Tapas 9 had confessed, then the police wouldn't be searching in Praia da Luz at all for Maddie's body (and they are ONLY searching - or pretending to be searching - for a body as the methods they are using indicate they are looking for a grave).
For you who think the tide is turning, try turning off your computers and just go watch the news; the majority of it is in favor of the McCanns and trust in Scotland Yard. Just think, if you who have studied this case nonstop for years, have recognized the political backing the McCanns have had is extremely unusual, and yet you STILL think or at least hope that Scotland Yard is on the up and up, how much more so will the trusting population accept the outcome if Scotland Yard's investigation ends with a dead or imprisoned abductor and every media outlet carries the final conclusion with complete and unwavering acceptance?
Let's see what the next few days bring....hopefully, a better conclusion than I suspect. Keeping my fingers crossed for a miracle.


How Madeleine Died During a Burglary – 03.06.2014
Right up the Rocha Negra from the Beach

I have worked on rare occasion for defense attorneys and more than once, when I have told them that their client was guilty, they then said, "Well, okay, but what other scenario could you come up with?" I would shake my head and tell them I wasn't going to make up something for them to defend their client with, but, you know, if you work hard enough at it, you can often come up with a plausible enough story that will make them happy (and earn you a few more dollars). Right now, there is great hope that Scotland Yard is actually following the evidence in the files or perhaps a confession from the McCann group and they are searching for some intermediate grave that Gerry might have been miraculously able to dig in that rock hard ground with a Tapas spoon (as opposed to hiding Maddie's body in the easier spot on the Rocha Negra, in a crevices that already has gravel and loose rocks that could easily cover a body). Then he would have to unearth her again and carry her off another location (which I believe should be a place like Monte do Jose Mestre to the west of the town). Recovering Maddie's body from under some stones on the Rocha Negra is quite a bit easier than having to dig her up again from that wasteland. Or, it could be that Scotland Yard is following the burglar theory. If I were concocting a plausible scenario for them, here is how it would go.


Burglar One enters the McCann flat through an unlocked door (wearing a skull cap to keep hair in place) and gloves so as not to leave fingerprints. As he is about to look around the living room, he hears Gerry turning the front door knob. Panicked, he flees into an adjacent room and hides behind the door. Gerry enters the children's room and the burglar presses himself up against the wall behind the door, daring not to breathe. Gerry looks about at the children and then leaves the room and the flat. The burglar comes out of the room but hears Gerry outside talking to Jez. As he stands there frozen, trying to decide what to do, Maddie wakes up and comes out of the room. She sees the man and starts screaming. The burglar panics, grabs Maddie and covers her mouth with his hand. He doesn't realize as he is attempting to keep her quiet, that when one covers a small child's mouth, it is easy to also accidentally cover her nose as well, blocking both airways. Gerry and Jez finish their conversation and they both move off. The burglar is relieved and takes his hand off Maddie's mouth. Then he looks down and is horrified. The child is not breathing. The burglar panics and doesn't know what to do with this dead child. He pulls the couch away from the wall and pushes Maddie's little body behind it. He rushes from the flat.


Once outside, he calls his other two burglar friends and asks them what they should do. They tell him h needs to remove the child's body because his DNA might be on her in some way or other. The burglars meet up with him and one watches the back of the flat and the other stands outside the window. Burglar One goes back in and opens the window of the children's room. He then goes into the living room and gets Maddie's body from behind the sofa and takes it to the window. He passes the child's body to Burglar 2 after they are sure no one is on the street to observe them. Then, he goes out the back and the burglars head away from the flat. Maddie's body remains in the flat long enough to account for the cadaver dog. Burglar 2 is seen carrying the body of the child by the Smith family. He takes the child to one of the burglar's homes where they decide what to do next. Eventually, they decide to bury the child in a shallow grave in a scrubland nearby that one of the burglars knows well. One man digs while the other two stand guard. It is possible that they decided later that they should move the body to a place farther away or dump her in the ocean, so using the same three person system, they may have removed Maddie's body from Praia da Luz to a place from which it cannot be retrieved.


I am sure many of you can argue that there are flaws in this scenario. But, if you think about it, there are difficulties with the McCann scenario as well. If you don't actually have to prove it in court, a scenario only has to be good enough to be accepted by the audience you are trying to influence. This scenario isn't a bad one. The McCanns can't be blamed for being unaware that a burglary ring was operating in the area (that would be the resort's fault for failing to inform its guests) and Maddie would have died quickly in an unfortunate accident, something Kate could surely forgive the hapless burglar for. The sex predator scenario also could be used with the same unfortunate accident occurring while trying to keep the child from screaming during an assault or attempted abduction. A little less savory but if there is a handy sex predator in the area (that guy in jail in England lived there), he could fit the bill just as well. Once again, I hope I am wrong, but I would be a lot more confident that this investigation had taken a turn for the better if Scotland Yard were up searching on the Rocha Negra, a place which should have been the easiest location to get permission from Portugal to dig.



There is a lot of talk going on right now that the Smith family made up Smithman (all nine of them), that he never existed at all. I won't go into the all the theories on this out there, but I will tell you why I totally buy the Smith sighting : the McCanns themselves.
Yes, my Number One reason for believing the Smiths saw a man that looked like Gerry carrying a child toward the beach is the McCanns themselves. Because the McCanns refused to give the sighting credence when the police detectives and private detectives did. And this is strange behavior, indeed, for the parents of a missing child.
Across the board, parents of missing children will believe in the possibility of almost any sighting being their child. They ask you to run down the most ridiculous and unlikely "suspects' simply because the "what if" factor is there - even if it is also "one chance in a million" - because they simply don't want to take a chance on that anomaly being true and ignoring a possibility to find their child. They will force their private investigators to follow every ridiculous lead "just in case," and PIs making $100/hr are more than happy to check out any and every so-called lead because they make a pretty good living doing so. (And getting your PI to privately take photos of a bunch of Gerry-look-alikes in Praia da Luz to prove Smithman isn't Gerry is not the same thing as acknowledging the sighting and truly going out to the public for help in finding the man).

But, here we have the McCanns, with two HUGE leads! Two very excellent leads: one that their trusted friend saw - a man coming right from their apartment carrying a little girl. Hey, if their friend isn't a liar (and the McCanns are innocent and didn't put her up to making this man up), HUGE lead. Yes, I get why they would want to follow this one, absolutely. But, then we have Smithman. Another HUGE lead. Same scenario as Tannerman, only instead of a trusted friend seeing a man carrying off a little girl, we have nine people saying they saw this. Again, HUGE lead! What parent of a missing child would have any good reason to believe one of these leads was absolutely true and the other one absolutely false? Both sightings were entirely possible with the supposed timeline, so why would the parents of a missing child have no interest in pursuing the second possible abductor, a lead as strong as the first, ignore one of only two leads they have?
The answer is this: there is NO parent of an kidnapped child who would ignore this lead. Not one. And since this is a fact, the McCanns ignoring this lead can only mean one thing; they are not parents of a kidnapped child.
Kate McCann finally gives the Smith sighting credibility in her book but only if the Smith sighting is the same man as Tannerman. In other words, she admits its existence but still axes fifty percent of her chances of finding her daughter by ignoring this sighting as a true separate lead. Either she didn't want that badly to find Madeleine or she knew no sighting was going to bring her child back from the dead.




A little while back, when I stated I believed this whole Scotland Yard investigation had zero focus on the McCanns, I said what Scotland Yard was likely doing was searching for Madeleine's body on land near where their key suspects either lived or worked. We have heard via the press (and although this information can be questionable, the Portuguese press seems to agree for once with the British press) that the scrubland area searched all last week was an area near to where at least one of the drug dealing suspects lived. Today, we get word that Scotland Yard has moved to a new location in the vicinity of a water and sewage plant four miles away in Lagos where dead heroin addict Euclides Monteiro worked.
There is actually nothing wrong with this strategy. It is a fact, for the most part, that killers dump or bury bodies quite near where they live or work, often within a mile of these locations. Why? Because when you get rid of a body, you want to make dead sure no one is watching you. Nothing worse than randomly choosing a little side road, pulling over, getting the body out of your trunk and as you go to dump it in the trees, you find a group of eight teens smoking weed staring at you; the spot you casually picked turns out to be a well-used teen hangout.

No, it behooves a killer to be sure that the spot he picks to rid himself of a body is isolated and witness-free. So, the killer goes to where he is very comfortable, a place he has been to or driven by dozens of times. And, naturally, the places you are most familiar with are locations connected to your own stomping grounds; home, work, relatives, friends, and pleasure spots. When you find someone going REALLY far afield to get rid of a body, it is almost always true that this is because he knows the victim and will become a suspect almost immediately. He wants that body far away and never accidentally found.
So when Scotland Yard started doing their scrubland search, in an area that made no sense if they were looking at the McCanns, I had to conclude they picked it because it had some connection to another suspect. And there is a big problem with their methodology - outside of the fact they are totally ignoring the evidence that points to the McCanns - and that is they appear to be digging up areas based on suspects that do not yet have any evidence connecting them to the crime.

Now, I am sure I am going to see some commenter below say, "YOU don't know what Scotland Yard knows; maybe they DO have evidence linking drug dealers/burglars/pedophiles to Maddie's disappearance." Let me respond to that. Yes, it IS possible Scotland Yard knows something I don't about these men, but it can have nothing to do with hard evidence. Anyone who has read the files knows what the physical evidence indicates: Maddie died in the apartment and there was no proof of an abductor. Even if one somehow thinks an abductor came into the apartment and left no evidence (which actually is possible, but not probable), this would still mean that Scotland Yard has no physical evidence to link to these alleged suspects. Secondly, since they have not even questioned these suspects, they have no physical evidence from their houses or cars to link them back to the crime. This only leaves two kinds of "evidence"; that they used their cell phones somewhere in or near Praia da Luz (believe me, Scotland Yard cannot pinpoint the location of any call down to the block of the McCann flat or any burial spot) on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance or one of these guys said something like, "Yeah, I grabbed that little girl" whilst he was drunk off his arse. And though these bits of information might be interesting enough to warrant further investigation into these men, this kind of information in no way constitutes enough evidence to dig up Portugal. So, then why is Scotland Yard doing so?

There are only two possibilities in my mind: Andy Redwood is a pretty daft fellow (he was told to rule out the McCanns before starting and ignore any evidence related to them and he did just that) and has put the cart before the horse; he has jumped to the conclusion that these burglars/drug dealers were involved in the disappearance of Maddie without any real proof, and following the "nearby burial rule," has gotten all excited about solving the crime and raced on to find Maddie's body. It won't be the first time in law enforcement history this has happened; there is some odd thrill about looking for lost treasure - it just might be over there! And one just can't resist dogging it down (pun intended).

The other possibility is that this is the end show for wrapping up the case in the McCanns' favor. Find a good-enough suspect, one that can't disprove his involvement (because he is dead, in jail, or just such a loser no one will believe him anyway), do everything you can to retrieve Maddie's body from near to where he lives or works, and then close the case with a believable scenario (to those who have never read the PJ police files) and go home having tried your darnedest.
Either way, I don't see anything good coming of this ridiculous excess searching in all the wrong places; if you don't follow real evidence, all the digging in the world will not find you what you are looking for.



As the week of digging up Portugal for no discernibly good reason comes came to a close, Kate and Gerry McCann told the press how pleased they were that Scotland Yard had put forth such effort but not found a dead Maddie. As they fly to Portugal on Sunday to testify against Gonçalo Amaral, their argument that he has caused them great emotional pain and damaged the search for Madeleine has not, in the end, been weakened by Scotland Yard's recent activities. In fact, Scotland Yard's Praia da Luz digging and subsequent statements have actually strengthened their case.

The massive money and time spent over the last three years and in the recent spectacle at the Snail go to show how difficult the struggle is to find Madeleine or at least what happened to Madeleine. Even Scotland Yard with their millions of pounds of taxpayer money haven't yet been able to solve the mystery, a mystery that wouldn't exist if the PJ hadn't failed so dismally in their investigation when the case was fresh and if Gonçalo Amaral hadn't wasted early opportunities to follow good leads to locate Maddie instead of being hellbent on convicting the McCanns. If even Scotland Yard can't seem to clean up the mess and bring this case to closure with so much money and manpower, the damage to the case by the Portuguese police's incompetence and Amaral's refusal to consider any other theory than the McCann's involvement is quite obviously tremendous. And, if Scotland Yard with all their seemingly unlimited budget and detectives has not yet found Maddie, who can blame the McCanns for failing to find her, in spite of all the cash they have collected through their fund?

On top of all this, Scotland Yard has just issued this incredible statement: "This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."
Two things jump out at me: the first thing is that the statement does not include the words "in the vacation flat" which means, at this point, Scotland Yard is not necessarily giving any credibility to the cadaver and blood evidence in the apartment. And this means their analysis does not support Amaral's conclusion, and in fact, indicates that he came to such a conclusion without reliable evidence; hence, he harmed the McCanns by claiming Maddie was dead, that she died in the apartment, and that her body was removed by the McCanns. The second thing that jumped out at me is that this is "just one hypothesis, " which opens the door for Maddie being alive which validates the McCanns' search, which in turn supports the McCanns' assertion that Gonçalo Amaral's claims in his book are libelous and damaging.

Thank you, Scotland Yard, for conducting this charade of an investigation which has worked out perfectly for the McCanns and been timed just right so that they can now enter the courtroom with their heads held high with just the added ammo they need to possibly win this outrageous and ridiculous lawsuit.


I have seen a bit of anger from those hoping to see the McCanns brought to justice over my recent blog posts. These are the same people who seemed to like me a lot when I was posting how the evidence, physical and behavioral, points to the McCanns. Now they don't like me so much, pissed off enough to now start insulting me and questioning my competency in profiling. Why is my willingness to speak openly and truthfully now a problem when before doing so made me one they cheered on as one of the few people willing to stand up to the McCanns and put their reputation and career on the line?
I believe two things are the culprits here: wishful thinking and an odd belief that bloggers, Facebookers, Tweeters, and even professionals have any impact here on what is presently going on.

Let me address wishful thinking first. Many want to believe Scotland Yard is planning so really awesome capture of the McCanns, spending three years cleverly working behind the scenes to bring them down, crafting television shows to manipulate them and the public. I see not a shred of evidence that this is happening. All I see is a police department with a mandate to review and investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as a stranger abduction. Everything from Day One points to this purpose and nothing since then has proved the opposite to me. The recent search more than validates to me that Scotland Yard is focused on a bunch of suspects that have nothing to do with the Tapas Nine.
Sorry, but there is no big surprise coming down the pike. Those who are angry that I question a top police agency like Scotland Yard don't want to acknowledge what I say may be true, because if it is, they know the McCanns are never going to be brought to justice unless the Portuguese do it, and the chances that Portugal will take the McCanns down without the cooperation of the UK at this point is astronomically low.

The second issue is that any of us has any power to affect what is going on in this case. Gonçalo couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, Bennett couldn't do it, and we have had the largest platforms on this case above anyone else. Maybe early on if such a strong, unknown support of the McCanns hadn't taken root, we all could have had more influence. But, once the powers that be took over, the powers are far too big for us to compete with. When I wrote my last post about Scotland Yard conveniently adding credibility to the McCann's case against Amaral, folks actually told me I shouldn't have written this post because it could be detrimental to Gonçalo. I almost laughed out loud, though sadly and with understanding. If I, myself, thought my blogging was going to change the outcome of Gonçalo's case, I would be afflicted with a serious narcissistic personality disorder.
So, then, you ask, why do I blog this pessimistic stuff about Scotland Yard and the libel case against Amaral? Because people DO need to realize what is happening, the truth should be kept out there, if not for its influence on this present case, but for historical purposes and its affect on future missing persons' cases. Also, what kind of person would I be if I explained the evidence against the McCanns but kept my mouth shut about the evidence of police malfeasance and political interference with justice? Should I only speak if it makes people comfortable and strokes their feelings of optimism? I don't think that is my role. I am a criminal profiler and I have always told it like it is and I am not going to stop now. I am certainly fine with opposing theories or purposes (some have to be the more positive ones), but my keeping it real shouldn't cause such malicious attacks except some people must really think I have hit the nail on the head and they don't like that this means there is not going to be a happy ending.

 
One of the most important traits of a proper criminal profiler is objectivity; to view the evidence without subjectivity or without allowing emotions or personal gain to cloud one's determinations. These are also the most important traits of a detective, a judge and a jury, the media and for anyone analyzing any issue. In reality, often these traits are limited or missing, both in professionals and layperson. And, because this is true, things don't always work out in life in a just and honorable manner. Let's see how this plays out in the McCann case.
Let's start with citizens, those people who make up a town or a state or a country. The first problem with citizens addressing any issue is ignorance. If you asked a good portion of people about the McCann case, they either wouldn't know a thing about it or they would say something like, "Isn't that the little girl Scotland Yard is looking for?" or maybe, "Isn't that the little girl that got kidnapped because the parents were out drinking?" Most people don't even pay much attention to the news and those that do, go with what the media is telling them and no further. They aren't spending hours delving into the matter via Facebook and Twitter and blogs.

The second issue is apathy. If the citizen deems the issue to be of little importance to his life, he may simply ignore it. I can guarantee you that the majority of citizens in the US, the UK, and even Portugal really could give a damn about the McCann case. Likely, the strongest interest lies with the citizens of Praia da Luz who just don't like the bad name town got concerning crime because that affects their business. I am sure some citizens of the UK are pissed that taxpayer money is being spent on what seems a fruitless endeavor by Scotland Yard, but I wouldn't be surprised that quite a few will simply say that the money is well spent if they can find Maddie and bring closure to those poor suffering parents. It is probably a small portion of citizens who find the matter important enough to get bent out of shape about.
The media has about zero objectivity any more because if "it bleeds, it leads." It's about the money, as much as can be gotten through ratings and readership. There are exceptions to this rule, but then we see agendas, on the left and on the right, and for special interest groups. Sometimes the truth comes out, especially in smaller media outlets, but these have difficulty fighting for visibility against the big guys. Sometimes when a questionable story comes out, I have to google to the 20th or 30th page to hit upon true facts about the matter and how many people do you think google that far down? Hence, the importance of getting high on the search engines and that costs money. Right now the media, for either reasons of money or politics, is squarely in the McCann camp.

Citizens can make a difference, I am not saying that they can't. I am just saying that it takes one hell of an issue to cause such an uprising that it gets traction and the protest has to gain incredible legs to threaten the people that wield tremendous power and control. And, sometimes, even then, what is perceived to be a victory is really one power faction getting behind a particular group to take down the other power faction. Sometimes even bad people do good things for society when it benefits them to do so. I was hoping maybe this was the case when Scotland Yard first got hold of this case, that maybe the political winds had changed and now the McCanns would be useful pawns for some new political power holders. Sadly, I do not see any evidence of this. But, still, we never know when one of us or a group of us influences someone out there who just might be the key to turning things around. I think that is why we still bother to try because we just never know. Besides, it is still the right thing to do and that alone is a good enough reason.
Detectives are people, too. Most of them really want to catch the bad guys and bring justice to victims and their families. Sometimes they do a fabulous job; sometimes they don't. When they don't, it isn't always because they don't care. They simply may be overworked or poorly trained or their department doesn't support them doing the right (and politically detrimental thing). Sometimes their subjectivity gets in the way or their ego or they get bamboozled by wealthy or well-heeled people who they don't recognize as possibly being criminals. Sometimes, a detective is just not that bright. Sometimes the detectives and the department do everything right, but get screwed by the prosecutor. So, while we want to believe all detectives and police agencies will do a stellar job all of the time, this is simply not reality.

Now, to the courts. Do you know why we have a jury system here in the US? Because we don't trust judges. We realize that they can be bribed, they can be swayed by personal issues, they can allow their egos or emotions get the better of them when they make decisions. There is a reason we have appeal courts and that is to fix the "mistakes" of lower judges (we do this for juries too). Of course, who is to say the lower court judge isn't right and the higher court wrong? Why do you think even the Supreme Court judges can overturn laws made by previous Supreme Court judges? Because all law is just a matter of opinion made by certain judges during certain periods of time. Once it was okay to have slaves and who do you think made those laws? Oh, yeah, infallible judges. All law is a matter of opinion and interpretation. The earlier decision of a lower court judge in the Amaral case had his book taken off the market. Now, some claim he was "inexperienced." No, he just made a determination based on his interpretation of the law (or his biases or his self-interests) and then a higher court judge overturned it based on his interpretation of the law (or his biases or his self-interests).

Monday, the McCanns will show up in court to testify. The present judge will hear their arguments and then, at some point in the probably ridiculous distant future, we will get a judgment. It will not be the judgment of a jury of untrained citizens who have hardly been screened to sit in court and try to understand complicated matters that are completely beyond a good number of them (who each individually might have emotional or other subjective responses to the matter and come to a conclusion that is far from objective). No, it will be the judgment of one person - one - one person who may have been bribed, who may have been swayed by politics, who may have been swayed by the fact one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world, Scotland Yard, appears to be in complete opposition to Gonçalo Amaral - just a lone policeman who went on a tear against a couple of parents of a missing child - a judge who might be swayed by like or dislike for one of the parties, who might simply interpret the law in such a way that people will then say the judge has been bought (by one side or the other). The judge may be perfectly professional and honorable or quite the opposite.
There is simply no way to predict the outcome in Portugal of the civil case of the McCanns and Amaral. I have seen far too many civil cases come to ridiculous conclusions and horrible wrongs perpetuated against individuals who came into court believing that the facts alone would determine the outcome.

In reality, the only ones who usually win hands down in a civil court are the attorneys (of which the judge is one). The two or more attorneys make a hell of a lot of money (and the judge a fine living) and no matter how it all turns out, they may just get together the following weekend on the golf course and have a few rounds of beer afterwards; after all, it is just another workday for them and a well-paid one at that.
In the court of law and the court of life, we can only do what we can in our respective positions as citizens or police detectives or profilers. If we do what is right, regardless of the outcome, we have added some good to the world and, maybe, just maybe, this is what is needed to give the human race the wherewithal to keep on going.
God bless, Gonçalo Amaral, and all of you who have stood for truth. Regardless of the outcome of both the criminal case and the civil case, the simple fact that some human beings will stand up for justice warms the heart and reminds us that there is still good in the world, even though sometimes it doesn't always triumph in the courts.


I was not going to post another blog about the Scotland Yard review/investigation, but when I see so many people still believing that this new round of interviews is going to solve the case, that somehow these people are going to spill the beans on the McCanns, that something must have been found in the searches, that sniffer dogs standing by is a sure sign that now the British are giving credence to the previous dog findings, I can't help myself; I have to address the issue.
Here it is in a legal nutshell: only if Maddie's body is found will anyone be prosecuted.

It doesn't matter that someone thinks they saw Gerry carrying a child that night.
It doesn't matter if Malinka says Murat is really in league with the McCanns.
It doesn't matter if the sniffer dogs hit on some rental car of these new suspects or their own car or on Murat's driveway.
Why?
Because if you add any new information (not proof) to the abundance of information already in the investigative files, it is next to nothing and will not provide anything of credibility with which to charge anyone; no prosecutor in his right mind would take such a mess to court.

Prosecutor: The new sniffer dog hit on Murat's driveway.
Defense Attorney: So what? The old sniffer dog hit on the McCanns' hire car.
No perpetrator of this crime is going to admit to anything seven years later when he himself knows there is not a shred of physical evidence existing to link to anyone. Anything these new "suspects" might say during the present interviews is going to be so limited, the case is hardly going to be blown wide open. No one is going to admit they kidnapped Maddie, helped bury Maddie, or turn over photos of Maddie in captivity.

Only, and I repeat, only if Maddie's body is actually located is there the possibility of this case moving forward. And, considering there is no good reason to implicate oneself after getting away with a crime for so long, none of these "suspects" is going to suddenly confess to where he buried Maddie - as a lone perpetrator, a member of some criminal group, nor as an accessory after the fact to the McCanns.
What is happening in Praia da Luz is orchestrated to coincide with the Amaral trial and to bring the case to a suitable administrative conclusion by the end of summer.

I have just been contacted by Anthony Summers whose new book, Looking for Madeleine, will be hitting the stands in the UK in September. He seems to have not an ounce of fear of being Carter-Rucked and his very-late-in-the-game shout-out to me to ask permission to use a few quotes from my blogs leads me to believe he is not going to spend a great deal of time in the book addressing Gonçalo's and my professional analyses of the case and the McCanns' possible guilt; it will be a book on the McCann search and the Scotland Yard review and a small bit about those people who question the McCanns' innocence.

For all of you who think there is going to be some huge public outcry when Scotland Yard administratively closes the case with a "reasonable theory" of what happened to Maddie, think again. Whether the McCanns win or lose in court, Gonçalo Amaral will still be portrayed as a "disgraced Portuguese cop" who traumatized the innocent parents of a missing child and the Scotland Yard review will be touted as a success in that England cares enough about any missing child to go the distance and find answers for the family. The media will also gush about how Scotland Yard did a spectacular job trying to catch the perpetrator or perpetrators and how they "solved" the case (if only in word). Finally, the Summers' book will come out and won't be pulled off the market by the McCanns, hence becoming the first "unbiased" and independent book on the case, the first book on Maddie to be published by a major publishing house, a book the public will accept as an intelligent and proper synopsis of what has happened over the last seven years.
Check.
Check.
Checkmate.
Sorry, mates. Sometimes it is what it is.




Will DNA "Solve" the MMC Case? - 02.07.2014

DNA technology is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it is the defining piece of evidence that puts the killer away. Sometimes it is the only way a homicide case that has been cold for years can finally identify who committed the crime. But, sometimes DNA is used to close cases the police want put to rest and the use of it is not exactly kosher. We have just heard that Scotland Yard requested Portugal gather DNA from four suspects last year. The question in folks mind is, what will they link this DNA to? Was there some DNA in this case we are unaware of or are they going to retest some evidence and find this DNA? Or is something very concerning going on with Scotland Yard's request? Let me give you two examples to ponder.

There is a very high profile case in the US that included ten murders, four of them of a family that began the supposed series. The case, the BTK (bind, torture, kill) homicides, though heavily investigated by local police and the FBI came up with blank for thirty years. Then, through a weird twist, a man by the name of Dennis Rader, a local married man who did code enforcement, made a dumb mistake and got the police interested in him. Very long story short, he was arrested and charged with all the murders in this series, and he confessed in court to each and every one of them with a description of how he did them; there was no actual trial. One of the most unusual wrap-ups I have ever seen. He got life in prison and some deal for his wife. There was a huge press conference with local law enforcement and the FBI and lot of congratulations passed around. Everyone went home happy; the police agencies, the media because they got a great story, the public because the police finally caught the guy, and the families who now had answers.

Except there is a big problem with this ending to the BTK crimes; the police never had to show the evidence they claimed they found at this man's house and they never showed the DNA reports that supposedly linked this man to the deaths of the family of four and one other woman who was killed a number of years later. Because this man confessed in court and was truly very creepy, no one seems to be questioning his links to all the crimes. Let me say this; the guy is a serial killer, no doubt. I believe he killed one of the female victims (I believe a later copycat killing) and I believe he murdered a woman not specifically included in the series who was murdered after 1990, when the death penalty was reinstated in Kansas. I believe the prosecutors made a deal; confess to the other crimes and we won't charge you with the one which will get you executed. In other words, Rader could become an infamous serial killer and duck the death penalty at the same time; I would take the deal if I were him.

But, I think the court confession was a charade. Dennis Rader didn't say anything in the courtroom that we already didn't know or the police already didn't know. But it is the DNA claim that was really fraudulent. First of all, I know firsthand from the detectives on the family homicides that the DNA was too degraded to be of use. Which is why my suspect in those crimes (who was a suspect in an unrelated murder and was one of the main suspects in the BTK killings at the time) could never be charged. Rader's DNA was also supposedly linked to a crime in which the woman's husband had been a suspect right up until Rader was arrested. Now, how could that be if there was DNA available in that crime all along? But, I guess the media doesn't want to ask those questions because the storybook ending was very satisfying.

There is another case in which a convicted (for life) rapist just got charged and convicted of a twenty-year-old crime. He was convicted solely on DNA; no witnesses, no other physical evidence, no confession. In fact, the man took an Alford plea in court (which means he admits the state may be able to convict him but he doesn't plead guilty to the crime) and he stood up in court and told the judge, "did not kill that girl." Now, I know a psychopathic rapist is hard to believe; after all, he didn't even allow his defense to fight the case. He took the Alford plea on Day Two, stunning his lawyers who have told me he did so because he couldn't get the drugs he wanted in the jail he was transferred to and he didn't want to lose his prison cell back at the penitentiary if he was gone too long. He already had life and this conviction wasn't going to affect him in any way. They told me the DNA report was questionable. I bet it was. The detective on that case AND the state's attorney had both told me years back that "there were no sperm fractions found" which meant there was no DNA with which to match to anyone; hence, no arrest could be made and certainly no conviction. Yet, oddly enough, years later, the case was suddenly closed with magic DNA and a suspect nobody cared about.

People hear DNA and they automatically think that this means solid proof. They don't understand that DNA testing has its failures, it incorrect analyses, and, sometimes, the claim DNA linked a suspect to a crime can be completely fabricated. It is hard for people to believe this goes on, but it does and the issue has been rarely addressed (although one book, Tainting Evidence, broke the silence on this). So, if DNA suddenly pops up to link to any of these recently questioned suspects, I think the majority of people will accept a Scotland Yard claim to its existence and validity. One way they can do this is to claim that a partial profile matches one of the suspects, enough for Scotland Yard to be convinced the suspect was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but, unfortunately, not to the extremely high legal standard required to prosecute. If they claim there is a partial match and then add in some behavioral stuff, like phone calls made that night, the case can be "solved" and shelved of the and most public will accept the conclusion without giving too much thought to the possibility that no DNA actually really linked any of these men to the death and disappearance of Madeleine.

Gerry and Jez Didn't See Them Either

When I have written posts about my concerns about what Scotland Yard is doing in the Madeleine McCann case, I have gotten quite a few comments that I am falling for media falsehoods and that I don't really know what Scotland Yard is up to, what their agenda is, and who and what they are really investigating. I would like to address this issue as it is the key to why I do not believe the Scotland Yard investigation is on the up-and-up and why I do not see any evidence of the McCanns being included as an investigative avenue.Sure, there are lots of erroneous and tabloid-trash reports in the media all of which can be taken with a grain of salt. However, there are three glaring media stories which have everything to do with Scotland Yard wanting them to be public: one, Crimewatch. two, the recent searches, and three, the suspects.


Let's start with Crimewatch. This was not a journalist's take on what happened. This was a piece of media designed and delivered by Scotland Yard to a good portion of Europe.It was a propaganda piece with the intent of planting the abduction theory solidly in the minds of the public. Research done, the second part of the plan is action; developing, in stages,what happened to Madeleine, so that by the time a theory is concluded upon by Scotland Yard and disseminated to the public (thereby administratively closing the case; there is never going to be a criminal case), the public will already have the scenario in their brains as they have been fed, scene by scene, what happened on May 3, 2007. First, we have the Scotland Yard approved crime reconstruction. The public got to see, in living color, what happened that night at the Tapas, at the McCann vacation flat, and on the streets of Praia da Luz. This scenario is not one made by an independent media outlet or by the McCanns or by some individual like Gonçalo Amaral or Pat Brown, but by Scotland Yard....Scotland Yard with its professional crime analysts and two years worth of researching all the facts of the case. This is a powerful piece of propaganda. It sets the stage for Scotland Yard's future theory.


And then we have that illuminating moment! Andy Redwood has eliminated Tannerman! In one stroke, he has proven both Jane Tanner and the McCanns to be truth tellers, and this is very important, for the public must not think there was collusion on the part of the Tapas 9. Also, we can't have two choices of suspects with the abductor going two separate directions. We must have one to carry the scenario forward. So we must have Smithman and this is the crux of how Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood will twist public thinking. Clearly, the Smith sighting is hugely damaging to the McCanns which is why they did everything in their power to hide and downplay it. It is an issue that must be resolved. The only way this can be done is to find a suspect that matches well enough in looks to replace Gerry (and it doesn't have to be all that close - the Smiths aren't going to be brought back into the public eye) - and become Smithman. This suspect has to have some reason to be seen in that area by the Smiths and so he must fit the crime scenario movements. I strongly believe Scotland Yard already had the burglary theory and multiple suspects in mind before they did Crimewatch. Although Andy Redwood then orchestrated another video bit with "Smellyman" as a suspect slipping into vacation flats across the Algarve, I think this was done to allow for the abduction theory to appear well investigated (along with the many other suspects mentioned in the media). The public needs to believe that this is a long and exhaustive investigation so that when a conclusion is reached, it doesn't appear to be something just tossed out to get it over with.


Finally, with the shout-out to the public for tips - how the public loves to be included and respected when it comes to solving crime - Scotland Yard can always also claim they got new information via Crimewatch that supports their theory, the source of which cannot be released. So, the first piece of Scotland Yard media has been accomplished. Now, the second piece. The massive search of Praia da Luz. The media did not make this up or misconstrue it. The search was painstaking and thorough, orchestrated entirely by Scotland Yard....and totally ridiculous if one is following the evidence. But, if one is developing a scenario, it makes sense. As soon as the first search began, I stated I believed the location was selected because it was someplace a suspect frequented or near where he lived or worked. Sure enough, this was what was behind the locations. Since none of any of the present suspects have any true links to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, why would any police agency spend a fortune searching land before anything solid had been established as to the suspects committing the crime? Because it establishes that Maddie is dead (because they proved that by searching with cadaver dogs) and that someone who is Smithman (but not Gerry) carried her body across that land and did something with her remains. That someone is someone who lives in or near Praia da Luz, that someone is a local criminal. They also may have done this so that they could say Maddie's body was not buried (at least not permanently), that it was put aboard a boat and taken out to sea. So, we have a local conspiracy, but not one of the Tapas 9.


Enter the next major media exposure....the suspects, the whole motley bunch of them. Suspects nobody really likes, suspects people can believe could have done something criminal and stupid. They are questioned and the cadaver dogs are even brought (unsuccessfully) to Malinka's old vehicle. Once this final phase of the media propaganda is rolled out, it doesn't really matter if anything is proven or even clearly pronounced by Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood. The show has already come to an end. The four suspects don't have to really admit anything...it can always be alluded to that one of them gave relevant information that has led to understanding what happened to Maddie that night and where her body was put (my guess will be at sea...can't be found). Or, nothing much more may be said about his group, Tractorman, Smellyman....whoever.....because when Scotland Yard says they have done all they can, that they have run down all investigative leads, and they have a pretty good idea what has happened which they have told the parents, they do not even need to elaborate (they might well give a full final scenario, but they may forgo that). They don't need to "prove" anything or even give absolutes because of this:


I have already myself envisioned how this group of men did something to Maddie that night. I can see them planning their robberies, one or two of them entering the flat and Maddie screaming. I can see one of them putting his hand over her mouth and realizing that he held it there to long. I can see the man carrying Maddie away, past the Smith family to one of the other burglar's houses, lying her on the sofa. I can see the men discussing what to do, phoning each other, setting up a couple of look-outs and spiriting Maddie's body away, to bury or to dump at sea. Alternatively, I can see smelly man doing something to Maddie. I can see both these scenarios in my head in spite of the facts of the case, in spite of the fact I have read the police files and been to Praia da Luz to investigate, in spite of the fact I wrote a book detailing a scenario involving the McCanns, and despite the fact I believe Maddie was buried west of Praia da Luz by Gerry. And if I can imagine an stranger scenario like this so easily, how much easier will it be for people not so familiar with the case to conjure up that picture in their minds? Add to this the future media commentary, and you have a home run. Like watching a crime series, week by week the scenario has been built up in living color and at the end of the season, the story will have an ending, and ending that is fitting to all the chapters of the story that have led to the conclusion. I don't know if we are seeing the very end of the "investigation" or we will see a bit more leads followed before it all dwindles down to silence, but I believe it will end with the libel trial.


Scotland Yard has been playing the media, not the other way around. That many of the detectives are only dutifully carrying out their assignments and may even believe they are doing a proper investigation does not mean those running the show aren't in the know; Andy Redwood knows full well what he is doing and what he is doing is what he has been told to do. Come the fall, I think we are going to see the end of the show, there will be a solid round of applause from the McCanns and the media, Summers new book will come out and Kate and Gerry will finally move on with life, probably in a way which will make us here physically ill.The media has always been at the beck and call of the powerful. At times, it gets away from them, but, most of the time, it serves their purposes quite well.

Scotland Yard, leaving no stone unturned and no Portuguese citizen unsuspected, has requested that they be allowed to interview all Portuguese citizens and examine their phones.

Bollux Media: Mr. Redwood, wow, this is really incredible! Why is this happening?

Andy Redwood: As many have suspected by our previous actions, Scotland Yard wants to insure that we do not neglect one single lead in the Madeleine McCann case and since anyone could have taken Maddie for any reason, we must identify where each and every citizen of Portugal was on the night of May 3rd, 2007.

Bollux Media: I see. But, then, what about those folk who might have been visiting the country? Does Scotland Yard have a list of each and every person who might have driven across the border and on to Praia da Luz that evening?

Andy Redwood: Don't change the subject; that is a matter for another day.

Bollux Media: Sooo, after you identify all the people that don't have an alibi, ummm, what happens then?

Andy Redwood: Can I get another beer?

Bollux Media: So, let me get this straight. Rather than focus on the things that you know, you are focusing on all the things you don't know?

Andy Redwood: Well, we have to eliminate all the things we don't know so that we can then prove in court what we do know.

Bollux Media: Isn't that kind of a roundabout way of doing things, Mr. Redwood?

Andy Redwood: Not if one wants to spend a lot of time in luxury hotels in Portugal.

Bollux Media: So, what you are saying is that you don't want the defense to claim that you pounced right on the McCanns and ignored other leads?

Andy Redwood: Exactly! Since we don't have enough evidence to prove in court that the McCanns did it, we want to be sure to prove that no one else actually did it.

Bollux Media: Riiiiight. Okay, well, you detective folk sure have a complicated way of doing things that I am sure makes sense to people who understand how law enforcement works.

Andy Redwood: I am glad you finally got the picture.

Bollux Media: Thanks for the interview, Mr. Redwood.

Andy Redwood: You are most welcome. I love the media. Without you, all our efforts would just be wasted.

I tossed out a short bit recently on Facebook and Twitter about how I was pretty sure Anthony Summers' upcoming book Looking for Madeleine due out in September would be a very pro-McCann book and I heard back from some that they held out hope that the book would bring out the facts and not be another whitewash of the evidence. I didn't explain in depth exactly why I thought this book was going to be one more nail in the coffin in the fight for truth and justice - for Madeleine McCann, Gonçalo Amaral, and everyone who has stuck their neck out - why I thought that this was yet another sign of the end days for this sad case which I predict will have Scotland Yard not far behind with their own final whitewash.Here is why I profiled Mr. Summers and his book (co-authored with his wife, Robbyn Swan) as a pro-McCann piece of propaganda and not at all a well-researched and even-handed book on the case.


1) Mr. Summers emailed me for permission to use some quotes from my blogs in his book. The quotes were the kind that could easily be used out of context to show me as a conspiracy nut.

2) If Mr. Summers was truly doing in-depth research on the case and "in-depth interviews" as is claimed in this Amazon blurb, why did he never do an in-depth interview with me? I am not trying to say I am vastly important and how dare he ignore me, but I would think any author worth their salt would interview a well-known profiler who has written numerous blogs on the case, who has written a book that was Carter-rucked by the McCanns, and who has actually gone to Portugal to "look for Madeleine." But, no, he only emailed me just before the final copy went to print to ask me about a few quotes.

3) He interviewed some McCanns (not sure which ones).

4) He didn't interview Gonçalo Amaral.

5) He got a big publisher and his book is being published in the UK. If that isn't enough of a red flag, you are bloody well blind! Read: No fear of being Carter-Rucked!

6) What interesting timing......


Anyway, I asked Mr. Summers a few questions and he refused to give me a straight answer. I had the sickening feeling my suspicions were going to be well-founded. And today I read the description of the book at Amazon.co. uk. There was the proof I profiled him and his book correctly. Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded. Sadly, I think this book is going to get a lot of positive media attention. The man and his wife can write and their skill is going to convince people who read the book that the McCanns are innocent and an abduction actually happened. He is touting the party line and the McCanns will surely back the book as, finally, they have "award-winning authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan" producing "the first independent, objective account of the case." My foot.


 

My Review of Richard D. Hall's "Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of MMC" – 13.08.2014
There is a lot of excitement over Hall's new documentary about Madeleine McCann and deservedly so as this is the first film made about the case which actually explores the incredibly peculiar issues surrounding the case that make it such a mystery, issues which haven't anything to do with the actual facts of Maddie's disappearance. Finally, someone has cobbled together a very dramatic (and I mean this in an intellectual sense, not a human interest sense) reconstruction of the events that make this case astounding - the lies, the inconsistencies, the political connections and the overwhelming political support of the McCanns - point after point is driven home with good visuals and explanations that should leave any viewer with a clear understanding that the McCanns and their friends are hardly innocent bystanders and that they had unprecedented help from high places that is absolutely astounding. I thank Mr. Hall for getting this documentary out to the public and commend him for his fine work. Certainly, this documentary, Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann contains a lot more truth and depth than we can expect from Anthony Summer's book, Looking for Madeleine, coming out in the UK in September.
Having viewed this excellent documentary, where do I stand on its content and the effect it will have on the case? Sadly, I think this work will be watched in its entirety mostly by those who already question the McCanns. Summer's "approved" book will get the big publicity and mass media will ignore the hell out of Hall's documentary. Yes, folks will do their best to pump it on Facebook and Twitter but compared to large publicity machines of MSM, it will be a drop in the bucket. Having said that, I am still glad this documentary is out in the public domain, but I believe, like my book and others' sites and videos attempting to bring the facts to light, it will be for posterity, not for present day influence. As to content of the documentary, I really liked the way Mr. Hall brought up inconsistency after inconsistency, lie after lie, bizarre political action after bizarre political action. I think this methodology was strong in truly pointing out why Gonçalo Amaral doubted the McCanns and why there is something not right in the UK and Portugal that allowed the McCanns to abscond and get away with their criminal behavior. I especially loved the third segment which focused on the private detective agencies...a true eye opener.
I would have rather Mr. Hall left out some of the second part content about Payne and the Gaspars because this was not so much about the McCanns' inconsistencies but a confused muddle of Payne's statements and the Gaspar statement which. while interesting. is not proven factual. I would have liked to seen more about the McCanns ignoring the Smith sighting and something about the Scotland Yard involvement. However, the segment on the dogs was particularly strong and anyone watching that should certainly wonder about the McCanns involvement in their daughter's disappearance. Having watched the documentary, I did come away with some thoughts unchanged and some modified. Here is where I stand:
1) I still strongly assert the McCanns should be the top suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.
2) I absolutely believe Maddie disappeared on May 3rd and not anytime earlier; the crime scene and what appears to be a cover-up hardly represents any kind of intelligent staging one might expect if there were more time to consider a better plan. I find the last photo to be completely irrelevant and since the crime scene indicates an accident that occurred in the flat, I see no grand conspiracy of pedophilia or involvement by any other adult in Maddie's demise.
3) I believe David Payne may have lied about seeing Maddie (something the McCanns might simply have felt necessary to prove an alibi, that Maddie were alive when they left for the restaurant and "the abduction" occurred whilst they were with others) or why he was at the flat but I do not find any reason to suspect his involvement in the crime.
4) I do not find the Gaspar statement credible at all.
5) I find it most likely Gerry moved the body and moved the body alone and he is the only person who truly knows where Maddie is buried.
6) I believe the Smiths to have seen Gerry, mostly because the McCanns refused for so long to acknowledge that Smithman could be the abductor.
7) I find it likely that Gerry does have some strong political connections that set off the initial support of him and Kate, but I believe the support later on is a matter of politics that has nothing to do with the McCanns. Sometimes, both in the media and in politics, tidal waves of specific actions have more to do with money, ratings, careers, and other issues than being actually connected to the original issue. The same may be true for Scotland Yard.
8) I still believe Scotland Yard will close the case down in the fall with an unprosecutable suspect or allude to one and allow the case to dwindle away. I do not believe the McCanns will ever be arrested or prosecuted. The Summer's book and the final Scotland Yard conclusion will wrap things up along with the civil trial and the case will slowly fade from public view.
Again, if I am wrong about the outcome, I will be happy. If I am right, I am still happy that so many people made an effort to find the truth and keep the facts out there; who knows what effect these efforts will have on future investigations and, maybe one day, years from now, the truth will finally come out.

Dear Blog Readers,
Today I make my final post on the Madeleine McCann case. I feel at this point, I have done what I can and no more effort will make any difference in the outcome of this case. In fact, from what I have seen recently, there is a sad desperation on the part of those who wish to see a positive resolution, turning on anyone who dares to suggest that justice simply will not be forthcoming in this particular case, that sometimes the bad guy wins, and the good guys have to accept that, in this lifetime, the truth may not come out.

I have been recently attacked for suggesting:
1) That the Gaspar statements are not reliable. I cannot get excited about these because we only hear from one woman who wasn't exactly sure what she saw and from her husband who does not agree with her assessment. Sadly, some of those who cry out that we ought to rely on facts in the McCann case are willing to allow one questionable statement about David Payne to become a focal point of what happened to Madeleine, that it is okay to slander David Payne while at the same time standing up for Gonçalo Amaral. I fail to understand this double standard; if there is not proof to denigrate David Payne, then we ought to leave further speculation to the investigation, should one even exist.
2) That Maddie did not meet her demise earlier than May 3rd. I have no problem with theories that suggest Maddie died earlier in the week, but I do not see any evidence to support this. If I can be polite about such speculation, I expect that I should receive the same kindness in return. I, myself as a profiler, find the crime scene to suggest that Maddie died on the night that the McCanns claim she was abducted. This is my professional opinion which I explain in my book and in my blogs.
3) The Scotland Yard review is a sham. Through all my years as a profiler, I have years of experience of how real investigations are handled. Nothing that I have seen from Scotland Yard suggests that they are looking at any possibility but the abduction theory. I do not believe they are going to arrest or try the McCanns. If others would like to believe that Scotland Yard has spent three years and millions of pounds to cover ground that was not necessary to cover in order to take down the McCanns, bully for them, but it is not anything I have seen in twenty years and I am not going to pretend I am seeing some clever ruse being employed when I do not.

Hence, I wish all those hoping for a positive end that their wishes come true, but as a professional I am not going to go along with a program just to make people comfortable. I have always spoken the truth and I am not going to change that now just to make sell people a pipe dream.
I will sit back now and wait for the outcome of the case. I wish Gonçalo the best and I hope that, in time, the truth about this case will come out so that future missing persons' cases will not suffer because the McCanns and the British government have misled the public in the most outrageous manner I have ever come across in my career.

 

The MMC Book the Publishers Wouldn't Touch – 11.09.2014
Although I will not be commenting further on the McCann case, I will, in response to the Summers/Swan travesty of a book"Looking for Madeleine," make two posts: I will review their book when I have it in my hands and I will share with the public the book the publishers turned down, the book to be written by Gonçalo Amaral and myself, the book my literary agent pitched (a year and a half ago) to all the major US publishers and none were willing to market due to the threat of Carter-Ruck.

THE MADELEINE MYSTERY

Missing children – babies taken from their cribs in the middle of the night and toddlers stolen from their bedrooms and yards – these innocent little victims have become fodder for media crime shows and tabloids, plucking at the kind hearts of caring people and striking fear into parents worried about their own children’s safety. The cases tend to make a big splash but eventually the case vanishes from the news, the still-missing children evidence of the failure of law enforcement to solve the crimes. While people often continue to wonder if one or both of the parents are actually behind the disappearances of their children -Haleigh Cummings, Ayla Reynolds, Sky Metalwalla, Jhessye Shockley, Kyron Horman, and Lisa Irwin – eventually the story becomes yesterday’s news. The parents melt back into oblivion - a few making an occasional television appearance, maintaining a Facebook page, handing out a few fliers now and then. Occasionally, we see a parent, especially an innocent one, start a charitable organization in the name of their child and do some good for other missing children, but mostly, we see the parents slip back into anonymity and the child is pretty much forgotten.

But, one case rages on, the most famous missing child case in history since the abduction of the Lindbergh baby, the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

This missing child case radically diverges from the rest and the now five-year cold case continues to be an obsession with people around the world – profilers, bloggers, journalists, Facebookers, Tweeters, and citizens of many countries but especially England, Portugal, and the United States. Gerry and Kate McCann, Madeline’s mom and dad, unlike any other parents to date, encouraged a massive amount of media attention, hired a top ex-British government spin doctor and spokesman, Clarence Mitchell to manage and speak for them, raked in millions of dollars that they have never accounted for in their not-a-charity organization to “search” for Madeleine established just ten days after the child went missing, and hired private investigators who have no experience in missing persons’ cases and so little ethics they have been arrested for various crimes including money laundering.

Gerry and Kate McCann were not the average parents of a missing child. They were both doctors, as were most of the seven friends (often called the Tapas Seven) who vacationed with them in Praia da Luz, Portugal from where Madeleine disappeared just short of her fourth birthday. Six of these well-educated doctors including the McCanns, left their children unattended in their vacation apartments for five evenings straight, out of eyeshot and earshot, while they wined and dined in the nearby Tapas restaurant. On the fateful night of May 3, 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed and by morning the McCanns were crying she had been abducted as their family and friends called in the international media. In spite of never having a shred of evidence that an abduction had occurred, and far more suggestion via cadaver dogs that Madeleine died in the apartment that night while her parents neglected her care, the British government offered their support including diplomatic assistance and the intervention of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

When no proof of abduction surfaced and the Portuguese police found the statements of the parents and their friends to be conflicting and deceptive, both parents were made Arguidos (suspects). Kate McCann refused to answer any of the forty-eight questions put to her and the McCanns left the country; the case was shelved for reasons unknown.

Once out of the clutches of the Portuguese police, did the McCanns lie low? No, they continued to maintain a high profile presence in the media including appearances on Piers Morgan and Oprah, and raked in some four million dollars in donations to be used in any way they wished, some of it to pay for their mortgage, travel, and high profile attorneys. Kate wrote a book called Madeleine which earned her a million or more and they sued or threatened to sue a number of people who dared to speak up about the case and suggest the McCanns may have been involved. Blog sites have been forced to shut down, promises to cease and desist obtained, and free speech muzzled. They sued the detective on the case, Gonçalo Amaral, for one and a half million dollars and got an injunction in 2009 of his book, the bestselling Portuguese analysis of the police case, Truth of the Lie. Although the injunction was overturned in October of 2010, they have yet to return the confiscated books. In 2011, American criminal profiler Pat Brown self-published a 32 page booklet on Amazon, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, which vanished after five weeks of high sales and nearly 50 five-star reviews. Amazon informed Ms. Brown that Carter-Ruck, the McCann’s libel solicitors, had warned them of impending legal action if the book was not removed from the market. They caved. Tony Bennett, retired British solicitor, is battling the McCanns and Carter-Ruck in England over his booklet, What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted, and faces jail.

The McCanns and Carter-Ruck not only sued private individuals but the British press over any negative stories concerning them. In an unprecedented change of course, the British press paid huge out-of-court settlements to the McCanns and the Tapas Seven and, afterwards, printed only positive articles featuring “the abduction,” “the kidnapper,” and “the suffering McCanns.” In spite of Gerry McCann’s under oath statements during the ongoing Leveson Inquiry (investigating abuses of the press including the recent Murdoch phone-hacking scandal) that he “is a strong believer in the freedom of speech” and he doesn’t “have a problem with somebody purporting a theory,” he and his wife, Kate, sue anyone who dares point out the facts of the cases and what the evidence actually does “purport.”

What is behind this veil of protection and the British government’s exceptional backing of the McCanns? Why have their friends, the so-named Tapas 7 taken a “pact of silence” on the case? Why does friend Jane Tanner insist she saw the abductor of Madeleine McCann carrying her off when the scenario is rife with contradiction and impossibility? Why do the McCanns refuse to accept the only credible sighting of a person carrying off a child (nine members of an Irish family) if it is not the same man Tanner saw when Gerry has an alibi? Could it be that at the later time Gerry does not have an alibi and Mr. Smith, elder of the Irish family, says he believes the man he saw was Gerry himself? Why if Madeleine was truly carried off on foot by a local sex predator, do Kate and Gerry have no interest in a search of Praia da Luz to find a criminal who likely killed Madeleine and will kill another child in the future if not identified and arrested? Why do they encourage the many donators of money to look for Madeleine all over the world but show no interest when a sighting of Madeleine hits the papers?

Where is Madeleine? Is she off in a loving family like Gerry and Kate oft promote or is she buried in the desolate acres of Monte do Jose Mestre, just west of Praia da Luz where Gerry’s cell phone pinged for three days straight and which criminal profiler Pat Brown believes is more likely? Or is Detective Amaral correct in believing she may have been spirited out of Portugal with help from others and be in an urn in the McCann’s home? Was Madeleine the victim of a sex predator or sex ring or did she die accidentally while the McCanns were out for their adult fun? Or, as some suggest, is there an even more sinister explanation for the disappearance of Madeleine and the protection of the McCanns by those in high political places; child pornography, child sexual abuse, or political bribes and backroom deals? Or is there a Masonic conspiracy at play as certain bloggers insist is behind the bizarre behavior of the McCanns and their British political allies.

As of this date, the Scotland Yard review continues. The Portuguese also have a review ongoing and the McCanns are still raking in the cash, absentmindedly forgetting to inform their donors that two major police forces are indeed looking at the case once again, paid for by the pounds and euros of the taxpayers of England and Portugal. Profiler Pat Brown is back from Praia da Luz is updating her Profile. Bennett is hoping he won’t be behind bars soon. Kate is working on her second book. The McCann’s Portuguese attorney, Isabelle Duarte, only has a few days left to return Amaral’s books after a court finally had had enough of their stalling. Amaral is preparing for battle as the damage trial approaches.

he Madeleine Mystery will be the first English language book on the Madeleine McCann case to be published by a major publisher. It is a collaboration between retired Detective Gonçalo Amaral, who has collected and extensively analyzed all the Portuguese police findings and has a far more comprehensive study of the case since his Portuguese bestseller, Truth of the Lie, and American criminal profiler, Pat Brown (as seen on Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Dr. Drew, Anderson, Inside Edition, The Today Show, etc.) who has profiled the case extensively over the last five years (Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and many blog posts at The Daily Profiler). Together, Brown and Amaral will bring the truth out in the Madeleine McCann case; the evidence, the analysis, the profile, the players, the politics, and the corruption, and penetrate the international mystery that still surrounds the most confounding missing child case in history.


"Looking for Madeleine" by S&S : A Book Review (1) – 18.09.2014

I have finally received my copy of Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I promised that, in spite of my moratorium on commenting on the Madeleine McCann case, I would review this book because my name shows up in it and I predicted months ago that this book was going to be pro-McCann and written cleverly enough to convince anyone unfamiliar with the police files to believe what is contained within this supposedly first "independent and objective" account of the case. Today I will address the author's claim to be objective and to have done extremely thorough research. I will start with the bit in the book about me because....well, naturally, that was the bit I just had to read. You will find the part about me on pages 196-197.


First of all, it is hard to exactly know where they got their information from because these supposedly professional journalists failed to include any footnotes in their book nor did they have a bibliography at the end. I surely included footnotes when I wrote The Murder of Cleopatra...how else would people verify what I researched and be able to learn more about what others had written on her history? When I read people complaining online, I saw Summers and Swann's reply that these folks need only to read the source notes. Well, I have the book in front of me and they meant this literally. There is a chapter called "Source Notes" within which is explained the they had read from the police files and Gonçalo Amaral's book and they also noted a number of media sources. THIS is NOT a bibliography. Although Summers claimed in his email to me that he had read my blogs and book, he doesn't mention these in his "source notes".....oh, yeah, well, he probably actually didn't read them at all. He mentions my blog, The Daily Profiler, in one of the chapters on haters, but he doesn't directly quote me (because I refused him permission) so he instead paraphrases what I said and does not footnote where he got this information from. I actually had to Google some of the key words to find out exactly which of the 72 blogs I have written on the McCann case they came from and, interestingly, what I came up with was the Stop the Myths site.


As a matter of fact, from what I could Google, most of Summers and Swan's questions to me came directly from the Stop the Myths, a, vicious pro-McCann site, which is why I got warning bells that I was about to be put in a conspiracy theorist or hater section of the book. It would seem to me that when the authors did research, they only did their research on the pro-McCann sites. I got no feeling through our email conversation that the authors had studied my profile of the case and they never asked for an interview early on (they only called me for quote permission right before publication) so that they might really pick my brain for my professional analysis of the case. After refusing to allow Summers and Swan to quote my blog, I suggested that they ask me questions about my take on the case and my profile and they could quote from my answers. They did ask me a few vague questions and these were my answers:

1) When a child goes missing from home, the police are faced with four possibilities: the child ran away, the child wandered away and met with an accident, the child was abducted, or someone in the home removed a live or dead child and is not telling the truth to the police. As Madeleine was not yet four years old at the time of her disappearance, it is obvious she was not a runaway. Although it is possible she could have wandered out of the vacation flat, her body was never found nearby nor was there any evidence she opened either door and walked into the street to then be abducted. The third possibility is that of a predator breaking in and abducting the child which there has never been any evidence to support. The fourth possible cause of Madeleine's disappearance is that something happened to her inside the vacation flat and the parents removed her body and are covering up a crime.

In spite of the lack of evidence supporting an abduction, the Portuguese police immediately focused on the child being taken by a local predator; this is not uncommon as well-healed distraught parents rarely become suspects in the early days as detectives tend to feel sympathetic toward parents who appear to be a noncriminal type. Because Robert Murat lived only a block away from the flat and exhibited some concerning behaviors, he became an Arguido, a suspect, which is not unreasonable at that point in the investigation. However, it would have been best if the parents had also been considered suspects from the early days of the investigation and then both avenues could have been investigated until evidence narrowed the focus down to one theory. Later on, statements and behaviors from the McCanns and their friends raised the detectives' suspicions that they might have had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, and when no evidence of abduction was able to be found and cadaver and blood dogs hit in the vacation flat and in the McCanns' hire car, the police had no choice but to declare the McCanns Arguidos. To this day, Gonçalo Amaral believes the evidence points to the McCanns' involvement with the death and disappearance of their daughter, as do I. The three-year-long Scotland Yard review has not provided one shred of evidence that any abductor removed Madeleine from the flat and it is concerning that they have never gone back to the beginning of the case and reinterviewed that parents and their friends nor done a crime reconstruction of the night in question.


2) After seven years of analyzing this case and traveling to Portugal and Praia da Luz to study the crime location, it is my conclusion that there is no evidence of stranger abduction and the physical and behavioral evidence continues to support my theory that the McCanns were involved with the death and disappearance of their daughter. It is clear after visiting the location of the vacation flat, the the statement of Jane Tanner that she saw both Gerry McCann chatting with a friend on the street at the very time a man carrying a small child away from the flat is unlikely to be truthful. On a street as narrow as that one is between the McCanns' flat and the Tapas dining area, there is no possible way Gerry and his friend did not see either Jane or the possible kidnapper. Scotland Yard's claim on CrimeWatch that Jane really did see a man carrying a child, that this man was a vacationer carrying his child back to his apartment after an evening of childcare provided by the hotel, is not credible - as the man would have been walking in the wrong direction. Furthermore, this man never came forward for seven years and Scotland Yard has not given out the name of this supposed tourist.

After examining the crime scene and statements and behaviors of the parents and their friends and taking into account the evidence of the cadaver and blood dogs, the evidence points to Madeleine being overmedicated by her parents and having an accident while they were not in the apartment. The sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a child toward the beach from the direction of the vacation flat has a high likelihood of being Gerry McCann. It is my theory that he temporarily housed Madeleine's body near the beach and in the early morning hours, moved her body to a gravel and rock filled crevice on the Rocha Negra, the large rock that soars above Praia da Luz. Such a burial spot is easily accessible from the beach and a excellent location to hide a body without the necessity of a shovel. Later, when Kate McCann told a Portuguese detective of a dream she had in which she saw Madeleine dead on a slab of rock and the cadaver dogs were going to be brought in, I theorize that Gerry McCann then moved Madeleine's body to a more remote location, possibly a desolate area just west of Praia da Luz near where Gerry's phone pinged over a couple of days, a hilly, shrub area known as Monte do Jose Mestre. Unless Scotland Yard or the Portuguese police search this area in the manner in which they searched three locations (based on the residences and work locations of local criminal suspects) fruitlessly near Praia da Luz, then it is clear Madeleine's body will never be discovered except by accident.

It is the totality of the evidence that leads me to believe the McCanns should be reinstated as suspects. With no evidence of abduction, there is no reason to spend millions of pounds chasing bogeymen all over the world and digging up acres of ground in Portugal when there is not a shred of evidence to warrant such actions.


Summers responded with this:

I've now read and digested. There will be a problem with length, but I promise you what will emerge will be faithful to what you've written. Lying. Dog. As I suspected, nothing of what I wrote in answer to his questions was included in his book. Instead, he pulls stuff out of context that he found on the Stop the Myths site and then ignores my statements that I permitted him to quote. Finally, he libels me by stating "The adventure (my trip to Praia da Luz) produced only substantial self-publicity." (Summers,A, Swann, R., Looking for Madeleine, page 197 - this is a footnote). I learned a good deal in Praia da Luz which could forward the case if investigators took my findings into account.

It seems obvious to me Summers and Swan's only goal in including me in their book was to prove my profiling of the case had no merit and that I was one of the haters. Although they mention my blog on the case, I am quite certain it is to present me something less than a professional profiler and more of a blogger. After tearing apart Nancy Grace, it is then mentioned I was a regular on her show. No where is my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann mentioned or the fact that the McCanns Carter-Rucked it. And since there are no footnotes, no one can double-check the veracity of the authors version of my commentary nor see in what context such commentary was made.


One of the advantages of being included in the book is that I know more than the innocent reader that not all is as it seems. Any reader unfamiliar with the police files or Gonçalo's book, The Truth of the Lie, or my book, or Tony Bennett's What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann: 60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted (or informative blogs like that of Joana Morais or Hideho) will likely believe that these two investigative journalists are presenting factual information and not a very slanted, subjective, and possibly commissioned version of the Madeleine McCann case.

One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. For example, in the 911 call place by Darcie Routier on June 6, 1991, she told the operator this: "Somebody came here....they broke in...they just stabbed me....and my children." Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.


Now, what struck me the minute I opened up Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book was the Author's Note. Pay attention to the very first thing these authors want you to believe, the very first thing. Then, note the second most important point, and the third. I will reproduce the Authors' Note in full. The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed. Allegations or innuendos about their role made or published by others, when referenced in the text of the book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case- and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious. This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann. So, the most important thing is NOT that the authors are going to be objective and allow the reader to hear all the theories, all the expert opinions, and allow them to deduce where they believe the truth lies.


No, the most important issue is to shout out that the McCanns are innocent, so innocent, in fact, that there is not even the smallest scintilla of evidence that should raise an eyebrow. The second most important point they want people to get is that anyone who dares to question the McCanns is egregious in doing so because - although police detectives and profilers and numerous other professionals doubt the McCanns' innocence - these two journalist know better than any of them that there is not a shred of evidence that should have led any of these professionals to such a conclusion. Hence, they are all hacks and haters. And, the third most important reason for this book is that the authors want the readers to believe that the McCanns in no way influenced their decision to write this book, did not influence what they researched and who they interviewed, nor did they influence what was written or have any say in the final manuscript. This is what they want readers to believe although this final sentence of the Authors' Note does not actually say that; the sentence simply says they did some work on their own as doing something independently does not mean that there is not a directive, there is not oversight, and there is not a final approval. For supposedly objective journalists, this opening speech is markedly bizarre for two peoople who just want to tell a story, to report what happened, to lay out the facts. These two people are on a mission to exonerate the McCanns and crush any opposition. I wonder if they were cheaper than Carter-Ruck.


"Looking for Madeleine" by S&S : A Book Review (3) – 19.09.2014

Today I have finished reading Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I sadly find I was right about my prediction that this book would be well-written enough to satisfy the masses that the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in their child's disappearance. As I read the narrative, I could feel myself starting to question their guilt and feeling my own guilt rising for ever thinking these two wonderful parents did anything questionable. Bravo, Summers and Swan, mission accomplished. But, I know what they doing because I have experienced similar responses when I read well-constructed critical reviews of two of my own books, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and The Murder of Cleopatra, reviews written cleverly enough that I started doubting my own theories and wondering how I came up with them at all. I had to go back and reread my books to see what I really had said and then I could see exactly how these critics had deceived me with their reviews, using magician's tricks to obscure the truth. And, when you have an audience who is never going to read the source material (either because it is too much work or the reviewer doesn't bother to footnote where he gets his material or have a bibliography at the back of his book), the critic can blatantly lie as well and the reader will simply accept what he says. For example, a number of my detractors of The Murder of Cleopatra blithely stated I had done little research on her life and death, completely ignoring the extensive bibliography I included in the book (along with many footnotes). I have a wall of books on Cleopatra and Roman and Greek history, architecture, geography, seafaring, poisons, etc (which I read from beginning to end with notes in all the margins) and I have massive numbers of web searches on my computers where I looked for each and every reference I could find on issues related to analyzing the Pharaonic queen's history. Never mind the two trips I made to Egypt. But, "I did little research;" I just made up a theory out of thin air. Likewise, with Madeleine McCann. I read so many attacks taken totally out of context that I had to go and read exactly what I did say and why I said it and when I said it and what I said before and after I said it.Cherry-picking bits of info and then cleverly creating a narrative around them is the way readers can be deceived into believing what they are reading is factual and honest.

And this is what Summers and Swan do and do well. They cherry-pick facts which will support their narrative that the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing. Then, they weave an emotional story around them and find all the supports they can to bolster the "validity" of what they are saying. Any facts that are damning or that would raise questions are simple left out of the book. Glaringly so, to people who have followed this case and read the police files, but to those that know little except what they have seen in the media, they won't have a clue they aren't getting the whole story. The other technique used by the detractors of the my two books and used heavily by Summers and Swan is the ad hominem attack. Those who attacked my Madeleine book spend a good deal of time trashing my professionalism. Attackers of Cleopatra book claim I can't properly analyze her life because I am not a historian. Summers and Swan infers that all those who question the McCanns are but haters or publicity seekers or incompetent morons.


Finally, Summers and Swan set themselves up, without any previous training, as better detectives and profilers than anyone else who has looked at the case. I have no problem with people who have not been trained analyzing something and then presenting good evidence to support their theory; in fact, I have been sometimes surprised by the good deductive reasoning of some lay people which is why I don't knock people who don't have a degree in a field for making a hypothesis. Sometimes experts are wrong and nonexperts are right. I don't object to Summers and Swan giving their opinion at some point (although for investigative journalists I should think this should be kept to a dull roar) but I do take issue with their incredibly arrogant stance that their deductions are clearly the right ones and those who question the McCanns in any way are one hundred percent wrong.


I won't bother to go into detail on all the inaccuracies in the book, the deceptions, the glaring omissions...I will leave that to other reviewers. My final thought on this book is simply that it has achieved its purpose; to create a final narrative in favor of the McCanns and abduction. I don't think it matters how well it sells or if it has a bunch of one-star reviews on Amazon because this book isn't about sales but propaganda. I do believe this book was commissioned and the publisher had no issue with putting the book out there because it wasn't going to be Carter-Rucked and might sell well enough for a profit (as long as they didn't have to spend money on publicity which clearly they did not). I find it extremely odd that the publishers did not send out copies prior to publication for reviews - an extremely common practice and one you would think would be done with authors with a name - and I have to wonder if part of the deal was actually an agreement to not encourage major reviews that might put a negative spin on the book. "Haters" on Amazon are not taken so seriously as are book reviewers with major newspapers and magazines. It will be interesting to see if anyone does dare to write a less than favorable review of this book, but there was a deafening silence in reviewland when this book hit the stands and one has to wonder why.


As I stated a few posts back, I will not be doing any more running commentary on the McCann case. I feel this book is the final spin to the public of the McCann's innocence, the trial will finish up (and I doubt in a very positive way, but I hope I am wrong), and Scotland Yard will wind down with either a dead suspect or a statement that they have a good idea of who kidnapped and killed Maddie but they can't get enough cooperation with Portugal or enough evidence to pursue the evildoers to prosecution. Whether the truth will ever out remains to be seen.


We are in the Secret MMC Troll Dossier – 05.10.2014
In the wake of the death of Brenda Leyland who was outed by a pro-McCann group, Summers and Swan, and the UK and US media, condemned as a Twitter Troll and McCann hater, let me publicly state that I can be pretty sure that I am one of those named in the dossier as a McCann hater and troll. Let me be perfectly clear to all media outlets. You don't need to out me. I am Pat Brown, criminal profiler, from Maryland, USA. I can be reached at profilerpatbrown@gmail.com and all my contact information is on my website at patbrownprofiling.com. I have two Facebook pages under my own name and a twitter account @profilerpatb. I am more than willing to discuss publicly my skepticism of the McCann account of what happened to their daughter in Praia da Luz in 2007.
If you believe you are one of the others named in the dossier, please add your contact information below so media does not need to track you down, publicly humiliate you and hound you to your death.


Summers and Swan and The Demise of Journalism – 05.10.2014
Although I am no longer writing ongoing commentary about the Madeleine McCann case (not because I have been "silenced" but because I feel a whitewash is a foregone conclusion), I still find myself unable to keep quiet when I see the media act in egregious and unethical fashion. And since I have been part of the media more than a decade and also have insight on the how the publishing world and police agencies operate, I can shed some light on exactly what is happening with this sudden attack on McCann skeptics that has proliferated in the British and US media in the last few days. For those not up to speed, it has been reported by more than a dozen media outlets that the Metropolitan Police have received an 80 page dossier from a "concerned citizens group" which recorded the actions of vile trolls and their attacks on the McCanns. This is my profile of exactly how this went down:


Summers and Swan put out a book (that I believe may have been commissioned) and expected - since they consider themselves to be investigative journalists of such a high caliber - to have little negative response to their book. They were surprised by the numbers of one-star reviews that certainly have curtailed sales (btw, the sales are not as bad as some believe - the site they are accessing for book sales is not accurate. While the book is not a bestseller, it is selling at a modest pace). Summers and Swan are correct that some one-star book reviews were made without reading the book. However, some of the five-star reviews were also made without reading the book. There is no "organized" attack by any particular group - just general encouragement to post reviews of a book many feel is a sham and inaccurate. The only group I know of that has coordinated an "organized" attack is the online group that turned in the dossier against the McCann skeptics. This is pretty much a group spearheaded by one particularly aggressive pro-McCanner. This same group encouraged people to not only attack my book on the case, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (btw, this was an earlier independent review of the case, Mr. Summers and Ms. Swan) and put up negative reviews on Amazon and Barnes and Noble, but to go after my other books as well as punishment. This same group is the one from whom Summers and Swan got their information on me (rather than reading my book and blogs or interviewing me) and has kept a running log on McCann skeptics; I have a page devoted to me on their site (or, more accurately, pages) which I am sure was included in the dossier sent to the police.


So, Summers and Swan gather information from a particularly vicious Internet site that essentially stalks, harasses, and slanders people who believe the McCanns might be guilty of a crime; then this same group warned them that they might get negative reviews on their book when it came out. After this comes true, Summers and Swan get all pissy and decide to fight back. I am sure if this "dossier" was given to the police by the group without the publicity generated, absolutely generated by Summers and Swan who are tightly connected to the media industry, the police would have shelved it without comment. I know this because I have been stalked and harassed on the Internet and there is little the police can do unless there is a direct threat made that the authorities will take seriously. Saying nasty things about someone on Twitter or Facebook is not a crime. I have had many nasty things said about me by the pro-McCanns (I don't see Summers and Swan getting all bent out of shape on my behalf...no, they are instead teaming up with my abusers) but most are not criminal threats (the closest was a photo that was supposed to be of my house that was posted either to identify my home so I could be assaulted or to show that my house was not a mansion - it was actually a photo of my neighbor's house). I have been slandered unmercifully, but that is a civil, not a criminal, matter.


Summers and Swan now also claim that they are being personally attacked. I guess if you call questioning their journalistic ability being personally attacked, they are correct. The group Summers and Swan are having a "promance" with have slandered me over and over but that is totally okay with this ethically challenged duo. The police are not going to do a damn thing with this dossier. Although another ethically challenged journalist, Carole Malone, claims Brenda Leyland (who was stalked and harrassed by Martin Brunt), sent 50 texts a day to the McCanns. I don't see any evidence she texted the McCanns threats. She posted on Twitter which is not a personal contact as would be texting and emailing or mailing. It is a public space where people chat and gossip. If you don't go hang out there, you won't get your feelings hurt as Summers and Swan and their daughter have or so they claim. Also, you can block anyone from Twitter and not see what they write. I have blocked all my haters and I see nothing of what they spew. I also block them from my Facebook page and, therefore, do not have to be bombarded by their nastiness. So, the police are not going to waste their time trying to slap the hands of Tweeters; they only commented to the press because Summers and Swan sent the press their way.


By the way, I am not defending really nasty stuff I see posted concerning the McCanns. As to Sweepyface (Brenda Leyland), I have only seen a small number of her tweets of; some are fine, some are a bit stronger in emotion than I am comfortable with. Whether or not I approve of all her tweets is not at issue; what is concerning is that she is being singled out as representative of all those who question the McCanns' involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. This is a wide and unethical brush. There is quite a variety in the content of what people post and some of it (though not the majority of it) has caused me to prefer, as a professional, not to be linked to any particular Facebook page or website other than my own. I do not approve of photoshopped pictures of the McCanns, sick comments, and such. I have had enough of that done to me by the pros and I do not think it is a civil way to conduct a conversation. Most of the people on the Facebook pages and Twitter are discussing things in a decent manner but there are those who cross the line and act crudely. Unfortunately, any major issue is tainted with nastiness these days on the Internet; you can see that by going to any comment section on any subject. If Summers and Swan think they or the McCanns should be not experience what every other public figure and author experiences, well, then they think somehow they are better than everyone. In reality, they have the fortune (and the lawyers) to have the media on their side for many years, so they suffer far less at present than the rest of us.


Which brings me to my final comment on this; the media have become the most vicious of all trolls on the planet because they spit out gossip, lies, and slander without even bothering to check facts, which is exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to do as journalists. They run with any moneymaking story no matter who generated it and how true it actually is. Summers and Swan clearly orchestrated this junk story in the media knowing full well that none of their media cohorts were going to bother to do any real reporting on the matter. My name is in that dossier, I am damned sure, and not one journo has called me to validate the accuracy of the dossier or to find out more about this "secret" "concerned" citizens group. Although I believe the Summers and Swan book is likely to have been "encouraged" to coincide with the end of the civil and criminal cases (although this seems to have been a miscalculation), this attack on McCann skeptics is simply Summers and Swan's outrage at having their book dissed. They are buddy buddy with the media so it is no surprise they were able to retaliate through them and, again, no media outlet is likely to question anything that is pro-McCann. I have been out here for seven years, written over seventy blogs on the case and published a book that was Carter-Rucked by the McCanns, and not one journalist (including Summers and Swan) has contacted me, a high profile independent professional criminal profiler, to understand the other side of the story. Balanced reporting, investigative reporting, ethical reporting - in the UK and the US - is pretty much as dead as Madeleine.



Why do People Tweet so Much about the MMC Case? - 08.10.2014
The news media is reporting that McCann skeptic Brenda Leyland tweeted some 4220 times about the McCann case (how they got this number I am not sure) and, certainly, that does raise an eyebrow as to the issue of obsession and, to some people, trolling. Although I myself think, wow, that is a heck of a lot of tweets on one subject, I quite frankly don't want to count how many I have tweeted on the matter and that would be on top of my seventy plus posts at The Daily Profiler on the Madeleine McCann case, a whole lot of Facebook posts, a trip to Portugal to analyze the case, oh, and yeah, a book, too. So I guess that wouldn't put me far off of Brenda Leyland's numbers except I could claim I have more validity for speaking on a case as I am a professional profiler and Brenda, well, she is just a "regular" person (in fact, my haters will say any "real" professional profiler would never have spent as much time as I have on this case without pay....that I am just doing it because I am a nutter and self-promoter...you can't win with this case, as a professional or a layperson when it comes to being called a troll).
But there is a perfectly logical reason why both so many people are spending an incredible amout of time ruminating about this case; there has not been a case like this since I don't know when. I think this case beats out the JonBenet Ramsey case and the Charles Lindbergh case for many reasons, the biggest which is the McCanns themselves. The case is fascinating, bizarre, a media magnet (so the media should have no right to mock anyone for their interest in the case), and unsolved. And to top it all off, we have a set of parents who act like no other set of parents of missing children, parents who have courted the media from Day One and sucked a massive amount of money out of goodhearted people and sued the crap out of anyone who dares to "purport a theory" (a right everyone has as stated by Gerry McCann under oath). Oh, and (as one reader just reminded me), we have the entire police files that were made public so we aren't merely speculating; we are able to see the facts for ourselves and draw our own conclusions.
So, Brenda couldn't let go of this case? I can understand why. Was it healthy for her? I have no idea. Did it give her something to do or did it drive her crazy? Did she lose faith in justice? Did she lose faith in the government? In law enforcement? In the media? Was the doorstopping the last straw? We will never have the answers to this but I can surely state that Brenda is not alone in wanting to get to the truth of the McCann matter. I have pretty much given up on that. I believe we have a whitewash in progress and this whole affair will be put to bed and the answers we all seek may have to wait for another time, if that time ever actually arrives. It saddens me because it seems wrong for so many to try so hard to just get this case handled honestly and properly. Some do it for justice for Madeleine, some do it for justice for all missing children, some keep on to insure our governments act properly, and some want the McCanns to justify their use of the money so many have given to them to "find" Madeleine only to find their money squandered.
As a profiler who has worked on cases from the inside, I can tell people that the McCann case isn't the only one that has had the truth hidden about it. I have seen police lie to the public, prosecutors lie to the public, evidence claimed to exist that doesn't exist, people convicted wrongly that no one cares enough about to be sure that due process was served, I have seen DNA reportedly matched when, in fact, no DNA actually exists. Why does this happen? Because it can and because the media knows which side their bread is buttered on and unless there is going to be a hell of a lot more in it for them than the next few easy stories from the police department, they aren't going to print anything controversial. Sadly, most police detectives work hard and want to see the right person convicted of the crime but politics sometimes overtakes the case, and when that happens, truth and justice and anyone who cares about these things become collateral damage. Just like Brenda.






Anyone who works in a lab that tests hotel bedspreads from a crime scene can tell you that they may find dozens and dozens of DNA samples on just one item, perhaps even semen from more than two dozen men. Why is this? Because hotels don't wash bedspreads very often.
Now, let's talk about curtains. How often do you think curtains in rental flats are washed? Yeah, about as often as those hotel bedspreads; actually, probably far less often because curtains are not usually a place where spilled drinks and food, vomit, pee, or semen tend to land. Unless those curtains get really disgusting (full of cigarette smoke, for example), they probably hang around without getting a wash for quite a long while.
And while they are hanging around, they are touched quite often.....open, close, open, close, open, close. So, if you want to find a location in a rental unit that might still have a lot of DNA from a number of people, you just might choose the curtains.

After, you test them, you would then have to run down everyone who ever stayed in the unit (and their friends who visited) and all the employees who might have entered the room in order to exclude anyone who have had reason to be there. You could then try to match the DNA to known criminals if you have their DNA or their DNA is in a data bank.
Of course, in the end, if you still have some DNA that can't be matched to anyone, you can always suspect that mysterious DNA be the calling card of some unknown person who committed some terrible crime that happened in that location.
Just saying.


How NOT to Commit Career Suicide – 09.12.2014

As you all know, I have been keeping quiet about this case and simply waiting for the end. However, there is a lot of excited buzz in the Madeleine McCann world that Nicola Wall, the new DCI on the case who is taking over Andy Redwood's position on the case, is going to bust this thing wide open and it is making me shake my head. No way.

Why? Because if she did, she would make the Met look like fools for wasting over three years and 10 million pounds of taxpayer money. Furthermore, a defense attorney would shred her for going after the parents of the victim when it is clear the previous head of the McCann case (British side, that is) never once investigated the parents or their friends, clearly focusing nonstop on a stranger abduction. Unless Ms. Wall wants to find herself back on street patrol, she is going to continue down the same road as her predecessor, until she can find a suitable suspect to finally put this case to rest.

Andy Redwood was not eliminating every other possible suspect and scenario so he could circle back around to the McCanns; no police investigation does that because it is ridiculous...you can prove something DID happen but you can't prove something DIDN'T happen which means there could always be one more suspect and scenario that could theoretically be the answer. If there is evidence, the McCanns can be arrested, charged, and taken to court but you can't take them to court just because you couldn't find another person who could have done it. Redwood wasn't moving his investigation toward the McCanns and Ms. Wall isn't going to either. They are either looking for the "REAL" culprits in the disappearance of Madeleine or they are looking for the BEST culprits to blame for her disappearance.

As I have previously stated over and over, I see no evidence that the McCanns are going to ever be looked at again by law enforcement and whatever happened to Maddie will continue to be unproven for years to come barring some incredible miracle like her body being found or someone finally confessing to the events of May 3, 2007. God Bless, Gonçalo Amaral; may he survive the nightmare whether he wins or loses the civil case, and continue to hold his head high as he deserves to be respected as one who never backed down or sold out. I can't say the same for Scotland Yard.