Saturday, July 5, 2014

All Portuguese Citizens to Turn in Cell Phones and Be Interviewed by Scotland Yard

"Not here!"

Breaking News from Bollux Media!


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.


This report is brought to you by Bollux Media and

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 5, 2014


Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)


What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

McCann Media - Journalism Gone Wild or Scotland Yard Orchestration?

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.

Pat Brown

July 3, 2014

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'










Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)


What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.








Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Will DNA "Solve" the Madeleine McCann Case?

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.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 2, 2014



 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' 

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)


What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.






Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Unless Maddie is Found


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.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
July 1, 2014


 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' 

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)


What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.





Sunday, June 15, 2014

In the Court of Law and the Court of Life




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.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 15, 2014

 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' 

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)


What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.



Saturday, June 14, 2014

What Some People are Misunderstanding about my Blog Posts



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.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 14, 2014


 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' 


Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.




Friday, June 13, 2014

Thank You, Scotland Yard




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.

God help, Gonçalo.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 13, 2014 

 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'


Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)



What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.