Friday, November 1, 2013

"It's a Disaster!" - Gerry McCann

One of the big questions people have who are trying to understand how Kate and Gerry McCann could possibly be involved in covering up their daughter's death is why they would do  that to begin with, In other words, would a normal set of parents go through such an elaborate staging of a crime in order to cover up an accident? The answer to that question tends to send people into one of three camps:

1) The parents are innocent because they would simply have called for help if they found their child deceased and then dealt with the consequences.

2) Maddie must have died in some more tragic way (like during a sexual assault by one of the Tapas 9 or as a result of some very violent rage by one of her parents) or it must have been some premeditated getting rid of the child for them not to have called the police and lived with a possible neglect charge.

3) They covered up because they thought they had too much to lose.

I stand firmly in the third camp when I profile what may have happened to Madeleine. I have never believed that the disappearance of Madeleine was premeditated by the McCanns. Why? Because that evening was too much of a mess; they could have found a better way to stage an abduction. I do not believe Maddie died a day earlier and they ended up with this discombobulated scenario of Maddie going missing between checks. I do not believe the McCanns went to dinner with the knowledge that their child was dead and then planned to "discover" her missing later that evening. Again, with more time to think, I believe the staging would have been better.

Instead, I see this basic scenario going down.

Maddie is found dead, of an accident, but an accident induced by medication and neglect. Panic ensues and and Gerry calls home that evening telling them, "It's a disaster." "Disaster" is a key to what happened and why they would have responded as they did, if they are guilty of what happened to Madeleine.

If there had been a simple accident under proper parent care-taking, it would have been, well, "an accident," not a disaster. An accident is something you couldn't have helped. It may be devastating, tragic, horrifying, crushing.....but an accident is an accident, not a disaster. A disaster is some monumental out-of-control event that one has to clean up after and manage the damage it has done. Someone drowning in the ocean is an accident; a tsunami drowning everyone in town is a disaster. One requires mourning and the other requires immediate action to deal with the mess. If Maddie had simply fallen while the McCann's were in the other room, some weird event where she just fell and broke her neck - even if they were having some wine in the other room and didn't know she was dead for an hour - they would have simply called for the police. I think we immediately know that IF the accident is just one of those horrible things that can happen in life - something that could happen to any parent because of daily life - a toddler drowns in a bucket of water a parent forgot to empty, a child accidentally hangs himself with a curtain cord, a child chokes on some little toy his brother dropped - we are not going to blamed for the tragedy; people will feel sorry for us because it could indeed happen to any of us in the blink of an eye.

But, if you neglect your child in an obvious way - leaving three toddlers unattended in a holiday flat five nights in a row so you can go drinking AND you give those children medication to subdue them so you can go out and entertain yourself without having worry that your children might wake up and be scared, that they might be crying back at the flat, that they might get up and come look for you, that they might get up and have an accident - now you know the public is unlikely to have so much sympathy for you and they may indeed think you should be charged with neglect and contributing to your child's death. And, if you have other children, those children should be removed from your care. And, if you are doctors, your reputation as as professionals in an industry which is supposed to save lives will be seriously compromised. Worst of all, you might end up in prison in a foreign country and god knows what that means.

THIS is a disaster. A disaster which could throw a couple of parents into a panic upon finding their neglected, drugged, dead daughter behind the sofa. Panic would ensue, then desperation to have the disaster ameliorated to whatever extent it could be. First the evidence of neglect and death have to disappear so the body needs to be removed from the flat, now the blame must be averted to someone else so an open window will make it look like someone came in and took her, and, if someone could see some man taking the child away at the time both parents have an alibi, that would be swell, Jane?

Some might say a panic-driven scenario like this may well not have worked; Gerry could have been seen carrying his daughter off, the window story may not be supported by evidence, people might not believe Jane Tanner, and what if the body were eventually found? Well, so far, three of these four problems may have already cropped up for the McCanns, so that goes to show the scenario may well have not worked if 1) they had not been British doctors which caused the initial investigators to believe the abduction story, 2) if there hadn't been so much publicity pushed by the McCanns that made them tragic figures in the media and the eyes of many in the public in spite of clear proof they neglected their children, and 3) luck....sometimes enough luck can get you by.

If we look back at the choices that might have been made for disaster control for such a scenario of Maddie dying in the apartment, they were actually very simple choices; hurrying to the beach with the body not even covered and not on a path that was totally nonpublic, lying about the window, and lying about a strange man walking away with a child while Gerry was on the street and Kate was in the restaurant. Nothing fancy, just quick simple cover-ups.

Finally, it is important to realize that a lot of criminals simply get away with their crimes; hence, the many unsolved cases out in the world today. While there may be no such thing as a perfect crime, there are "good enough" crimes that mean no one will ever be charged.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 1, 2013

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.



By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

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.


131 comments:

StephiePowers said...

wow...spot on.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what happened but the window was never opened the only prints were Kate's...

Way back at the start of this one theory was Gerry was supposed to go back and open the shutters but got distracted by Jez and never had time to tell Kate the plan had changed....

I started to follow this as the press reporting was so biased in favour of parents who 9 days after she was supposedly in the hands of peados on her 4th Birthday were laughing their heads off at church...

Only one person I know believes them and the damage they are doing to innocent people has to stop...

It may be too later for Maddie but the spite and hate from Kate towards anyone who can see her for what she is has to end...

PeterMac said...

Neat analysis, Pat.

Pat Brown said...

Thank you, Stephanie and Peter. Sometimes we forget that panic will cause one to do things that if we had time to think, we might choose another action. For example, a guy has had six beers and is driving home at night. A pedestrian dressed in black steps into the high speed road and is hit by the guy's vehicle He is so freaked he just keeps on driving, telling himself someone else will quickly call 911. Why does he keep driving? Because he fears, because he could be consider as driving under the influence, he will go to prison for ten years, leaving his family destroyed. While it may be true that the accident wasn't his fault, proving it is another matter and in today's world, if you hit a person while drunk, it seems not to matter if it really isn't your fault. So you just keep going and hope the whole thing will go away somehow and no one will ever know it was you.

Now, this is not a proper action but it is not an unusual one. Some will say the guy deserves it because he had six beers, but if you count how many people have driven home after hanging out at a pub and imbibing some liquor and never have had an accident, we would have to jail a good portion of the population for careless behavior that could lead to trouble. Again, not saying it is right to drink and drive - one should not do that - but it also doesn't mean a person who has been drinking is necessarily responsible for every accident. Regardless of how you feel about this, the fear of the impending penalty may cause panic behavior and covering up of one's misdeeds.

Martin B said...

Wonderful post Pat, I agree with every part of it.

pete claridge said...

It was never their plan to raise the alarm whilst they were at the tapas bar, the sighting of Gerry by the Smith family brought the alarm forward (Gerry had become the abductor). The timelines produced clearly show an attempt to combine the genuine absences from the table of Gerry McCann, Mathew Oldfield and Russell O'Brien (but not for the stated reasons) with a pretence of a checking schedule and an alibi for Gerry (and only Gerry) via the fabricated sighting by Jane Tanner who never left the table until the alarm (false) was raised; this is why the ever evolving timelines don't work, they were made up after the alarm was raised and explain the delay in calling the police (and of course Tanners delay in notifying the parents of her sighting).

Madeleine McCann was dead before they left for the tapas bar that evening, a fact Known to all of the group bar Dianne Webster and all of the children of the group were given help to sleep.

Martin B said...

It seems to be quite a common view that it was too risky for GM to be walking around with a dead body. What people don't seem to consider is that there was no alternative! He had no choice, if he was going to cover up the real cause of death then this was the only action he could take. Looking at the route he took, I wonder if he considered the wasteland just north of the car-park, but then either couldn't get inside, or worried that the body would be found too quickly. So he took a chance - and ran into the Smiths.

Anonymous said...

Yes Pat, those are pretty much my exact thoughts. The only area that still puzzles me is the body - initial concealment, recovery, and then disposal. I think they must simply have been very lucky.

I'm a writer, and I sometimes hear dialogue in my head. I can imagine their dialogue that night. it's as clear as day to me. It would have been about the twins, the need to do what was best for them. The need to accept that M was gone, and there was nothing they could do, and instead to consider the twins and their future. In one ten minute conversation the initial imperative and actions would be clear, and then they had some luck, and then they had to move heaven and earth to keep the story together.

You know, I don't even particularly want them punished. I just want the truth.

(Anonymous, because I'm in the UK.)

Pat Brown said...

Pete, I think that is far to fanciful and IF they had so much tim to plan, they could come up with something better like just take Maddie away at 4 am and then stage the window. That way, they could be GOOD parents who were sleeping when their child was stolen out of the flat a la Elizabeth Smart. They would have had 12 hours to get rid of evidence, make sure they didn't get seen carrying off the body, and stage a more convincing scenario.

Now, it IS possible Maddie was dead before they went out to the bar, that she fell behind the sofa while they were drinking outside on the veranda and they never bothered to go back in and check on the kids. Gerry may have found her dead right after he spoke with Jeremy and then all hell broke loose.

Artbyphil said...

What confuses me most is why the authorities seem to be going out of their way to help with the cover up.

They must have friends in very high places.Or are they covering something more up?

guerra said...

Pete Claridge, I agree that the child was dead before they left for the Tapas bar that evening. The child died much earlier, possibly even the day before. The creche records are unreliable. It's interesting that most of the nannies that worked in the creche were sent to Greece on May 13, 2007. And then you have that story about Mr. Payne leaving Mr. McCann at the tennis court to check on Mrs. McCann and the kids, most likely a story created to try to convince people that Madeleine was alive and well at the time.

Being seen by Mr. Smith did alter whatever the plan was.

Julie Moon said...

How long does it take for the smell of decomposition to start to occur? If a child fell and accidentally died, then that child would have had to lie there [x] many hours before being discovered in order to produce the decomp that the dogs discovered. That, in itself, would smack of extreme neglect wouldn't it? Even if the child had no signs of molestation, and no drugs in their system, just being dead a certain length of time at that age before being discovered would be much more than an accident.
Better to say you left them alone for 15-30 minutes at a time, then to admit you left them there [x] many hours alone.
Just a thought. I never thought they tried to get rid of their daughter, but I figured it had to be more of a disaster than a simple accident or they'd have just rung for help.

pete claridge said...

Pat, Gerry wasn't checking when he came across Jez, he'd been away from the bar for longer than stated. Read Dianne Webster's second statement and then her rogatory interview.
I believe it was their plan to raise the alarm in the morning and that she was taken via the window. Much better to have a large gap between removal and the alarm raising and I doubt that Gerry was expecting to meet such a large group of people via the route that he took, as I said this was the point that he became the abductor leaving him with no option but to raise the alarm early.

Mathew Oldfield wasn't checking at 9.00 either (see Dianne Webster).

guerra said...

Pat, if they took Madeleine away at 4 a:m, then they couldn't use their friends as an alibi. They did use the time they had to scour the apartment.

You could be right, I just have a different opinion. The reason that there are so many plausible theories is that the investigation was never completed. Once the British government set their foot down the British authorities stopped cooperating with the Portuguese police, so the investigation reached an impasse.
It had to end.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Hi Pat, I have some questions that I would like to know your opinion on. Sorry if you have answered these points elsehwere! If you have could you point me to the relevant articles, thanks.:)

Your reasoning here is very down to earth and some theories pertaining to the Mccanns are a little fanciful IMO. However, it strikes me that, given the utterly bizzarre politics that is going on behind the scenes, the Mccanns are somehow very important people.

Indeed it seems to me the Mccanns got special help long before they became famous and rich from the story. Tony Bennett seems to suggest that the CEOP arrived very early on in Prai de Luz and possibly fitted up Murat.

Do you think Gerry's work on the nuclear committee has any relevance?

Also, what's your opinion on:
1) the Gaspar statement; and
2) the supposed 'porn like' pictures of Maddie released by the Mccanns. Personally I don't really know if these are normal child photos or something more sinister.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I would be interested in your comments as to the involvement of the other members of the group - how and when do you believe they were made aware of the death of Madeleine, and what do you believe their motivations are with regards to their 'pact of silence' relating to this? I have trouble in believing that so many apparently well educated and intelligent people could really value their friendships over the law / their conscience or sense of right or wrong. Ps. Keep up the good work.

pete claridge said...

guerra, I entirely agree with the Payne visit being to give the impression that she was alive at that point, as for when she died I would stump for earlier that evening as I believe that Oldfield and O'Brien were cleaning the apartment on their claimed checks and creche records (any sort of signing in and out record) are always a mess.

hilda said...

There are two points I'd like to bring up.

a)I can understand that they might want to cover up an accident in the way you describe and go through the motions of searching for her; making TV appeals, giving interviews and so on
But I think that at the same time they would only want to keep up this performance for a limited time; that once the initial flurry of activity is over they would be happy to get out of the spotlight so that they could be left alone to mourn their daughter and to try and come to terms with what had happened.

But the McCann's have kept up their vigorous campaign for well over 6 years now and I cannot understand how they could bear to go through all of that, with all the emotional strain and deceit it involves, if they know that their daughter is dead.

b) It did appear for most of the last 6 years as if Jane Tanner had been lying about the man she saw, but then Scotland Yard claimed on the Crimewatch programme that a man has come forward who fits her description and they seem to be satisfied that he is the same man.

Since it would have been too much of a co-incidence for her to have dreamed up such a man, then either she is telling the truth or Scotland Yard are not.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat,

I go along with all that you say in this brilliattly logical and lucid exposition except in two respects which continue to bug me, because they don't add up without another ingredient which I believe is still hidden from us.

I still don't understand why they didn't simply call the emergency services and say that there had been a tragic acident. Some of the doctors in the Tapas group were high-flying specialists, not just general practioners like Kate. They surely could have blagged any local docotr/pathologist unless there were one of two things associated with the girl's body. The first is that it had been violated in a way that could not be hidden. The second is that she had been fed an experimental mixture of drugs. The Tapas were a group of highly intelligent people, used to making life and death decisions, yet they seem to have acted with less guile than some very lowly people. They were panicked - why?

Then, when you compare this case with Ben Needham or almost any other incident involving a British child abroad you have to ask why the artillery came charging down from Lisbon in the form of the ambassador, followed by professional PR people. PR consultants earn their living by spinning the unthinkable into the acceptable.

I have one further thought - wich assumes there really was an abduction. The little girl was conceived by IVF. Suppose there were a couple out there who were going for IVF at the same time and in the same place as Kate and Gerry and were convinced that Maddy was their child. We know now from the DNA that she couldn't be, but say some sort of deal was done that was reneged upon. I won't speculate further, except to say I am convinced one piece of the jigsaw is still missing.

Anonymous said...

I have listened and read with interest about this sorry episode and I just know they are lying. They show all the classic signs of lying. The earlier videos of them really show this. They never speak directly to her, always talk about her like she's here now, bizarre and try to tie the story of that evening in knots, they are obscene and they def had a hand in that poor girls murder

Lesley said...

Hi, I commented on Pat's previous article and Hilda's comment drew my attention. I believe the McCann's to be Narcissists,therefore their prime concern,even in moments of such agony and horror would have been to themselves...likewise, when they were named'aguidos' and then responded as Narcs...they stepped up the campaign to maintain innocence and above all status.It's hard for others to imagine but entirely within the capability of a bonded Narc Pairing. They provide each others' mirrors? Bigtime.
Regarding this article,personally I think it happened a few hours earlier..they made a pact, I can see him remonstrating with her...that's how she got those forearm/wrist bruises?It was all about how much they had to lose in terms of lifestyle and the dye was cast.
I think the kids(all of them)were sedated...that's why she feels the chest of the twins repeatedly(Fiona Paynes statement)after the abduction.
Exactly how they dealt with the body not sure?

Pat Brown said...

Pete and Guerra,

Of course I am aware of all the statements including Diane Webster and the most interesting of all, the footy statement about Gerry being gone so long. I address all of that in my book.

However, I disagree that Maddie was known to be dead before the evening began and everyone was in on it then. Why? Because it is a ridiculous staging, too confusing to put together, and too difficult. As I said in the post, it would be far easier just to pretend Maddie was grabbed in the night. An alternative to that would be to allow the morning had come and claim Maddie got out of the house and someone grabbed her or Kate had taken the kids out and when she turned her back, Maddie was gone. These are much easier scenarios that bring far less attention to them. The staging was so screwed up that it had to be done in panic, not in some plan that they had hours to develop. Hence we have the Smith sighting, the conflicting and confusing statements, the timeline on Maddie's ripped up book and Jane's statement. If they actually wanted to use the evening as a cover, they could have removed her body first, when they had time to place her in a bag and cart her off someplace and THEN go out for the evening and make sure the children were being checked in tandem so that there would be witnesses to Maddie being in bed on each check until Kate's.

Pat Brown said...

Thomas, you have asked the million dollar question as to why they got so much political support. I have no answer to that and this is the biggest mystery of the entire case.

As for the Gaspar statement, I have never put much faith in that. I would think even pedophiles have the sense not to make such obvious inferences to sexually assaulting children especially one of their own children at a dinner table with so many people present. In retrospect, what happens, like the pictures you think are so sexual in nature of Maddie, people assign meaning to things that may not have meaning. I have a cute little picture of my daughter when she was a baby, naked, and looking like she is in a Playboy pose (on her stomach with her cute little butt showing). Of course, it is just a cute pic of a little baby but someone could go back and find that photo and a bunch others that make them think is was something more than that.

Pat Brown said...

Hilda, I do not at all buy Scotland Yard's story of the Tanner sighting as being a tourist. I think they just wanted to eliminate it in order to 1) focus on the Smith sighting as Gerry or more likely 2) make the Tanner sighting not a lie to give credibility to the McCanns as not putting her up to it.

Anonymous said...

lot of people from whole world are thinking the same like Pat, me too, Susi from Slovakia

Pat Brown said...

Oh,yes, another point, Hilda. You are correct that it seems strange that after the initial flurry the McCanns would continue pressing for more help. This behavior does make one think they might be innocent.

However, evidence does not support their innocence. So, what would be the reason? Possibly because the fund was bringing in money and because they thought to stop "looking for Maddie" would allow them to be viewed as suspects. It is rather overkill but we have seen the McCanns use extreme measures quite often including, very likely drugging their kids so they can go drink.

One other possibility is that the McCann pushed for Scotland Yard never thinking in a million years they would actually spend millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate a case that old and not even within the borders of their country.

Sometimes when the horse is out of the barn, you just keep going with it.

Pat Brown said...

Lesley, I agree with the likelihood of the McCanns being narcissists which would impact their behavior and perception (of how other people see them). I see Gerry as being the leader of the duo as I think was true with John and Patsy Ramsey.

pete claridge said...

Pat, my point is that the timelines were produced in a panic, one brought on by the Smith sighting. As you correctly point out it would have been much easier to have raised the alarm in the morning (I believe this to be the original plan). The lying about the earlier checks clearly points to them knowing about Madeleine's death prior to them leaving for the Tapas bar that evening as does the David Payne statement claiming to have seen the children earlier.

Keep up the good work it's much appreciated this side of the pond!

Lesley said...

Hi Pat,
I agree Gerry is the driving force and brains behind the outfit...The key to this is in the progression of'competence' at interview..compare for example their behaviour on May 6th outside the church(unconvincing)to the later interviews such as Scandinavian TV 2012.Gerry no longer literally has to take her hand?
I either fall in the camp that it was an instantaneous narcissistic reaction to an accidental death or something with a few hours planning.
Thinking completely our of the box...it would have taken him around 15 minutes to walk to the beach and back and incur the Smith sighting...(think you said it took 6 or 7 minutes to hit the rue d'escolia)what if Madeleine was already hidden/dealt with and it was Amelie he held that night?
This suggests a complete staging...more time and thinking through?
Whatever occurred,there was total agreement between the two of them towards'Abduction' from the word go...this was their own salvation.
Their downfall maybe that Narcissists cannot fully apprehend how human,emotional people think and feel...so,even at this advanced stage in the game they do continue to give themselves away?

Pat Brown said...

Heh, well, I would still have to disagree. I don't think Gerry would have picked a time when it was still extremely likely tourists were running around the streets (wait until the bars close) nor would he have carried the child in the open unless he were so freaked that cradled her body and hurried off.

Pat Brown said...

And, thanks, Pete for you kind words. I think everyone who has refused to give up on pushing for the truth is amazing. And, regardless of a variety of theories (which will remain such because so much evidence is not available), it is my hope that all of these theories make people think, especially the detectives if they are truly pursuing the case in the name of justice.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I think this is a superb summary of the most likely scenario.
As for the protection that the McCann's have received, I take a somewhat 'agnostic' view. As regards Gordon Brown, for example, at the time of all this happening he was locked in political battle with Tony Blair. Brown was/is obsessive about his press coverage, and was desperately searching for some kind of narrative that could establish him as more "human" in the eyes of the public. The McCanns appeared to present him with such an opportunity. He saw a massive "human interest" story that he felt he could influence in such a way as to ingratiate himself with the public.
This, I think, has been the nature of the tale all along. The McCanns created a narrative which a succession of politicians, journos, cops (and even judges) have endorsed for their own varied reasons - each seeing some kind of distinct advantage to being part of the soap opera.
Judge Leveson was particularly gratuitous with this. He wanted his inquiry to gain maximum exposure and maximum weight of emotion. Quite simply it suited his agenda to give the McCanns a free and unquestioned rein; and having once dipped their toes into this murky water, these people have found it impossible to withdraw. Colours were nailed to the mast!
I have often wondered whether any of these people are actually aware of the reality of Madeleine's disappearance, they must be; but they swallow their scruples. "If the police fail to make the case then why should we ask?" ..that seems to be their stance.
Not asking, failing to judge, playing dumb, it amounts to the same thing. They exploit the narrative of the "beleaguered couple, the doe eyed girl and the stupid/murderous foreigner". In reality they exploit a child...her right to justice.
But politics can change, and narratives turn. Portugal might yet force such a change.

All the very best,

Paul

Lesley said...

One last comment,before I leave thinking about such cold bloodlessness as the McCanns,intriguing as it is... I agree entirely Pat that Kate's book is almost an'How we did it'!)))
Her description in the book of how the lady above(Mrs Fenn)shouts down about the noise is a 'gift' as you suggest?
Kate(after long description about her own distress)...shouts back 'that her daughter has been taken from her bed'
She then says,commenting on Mrs Fenn's lack of concern...'It was as if a can of beans had fallen from a kitchen shelf'
Wow..you don't have to be a Freudian scholar to get that 'Slip'!
A child,often described as'FULL OF BEANS'has fallen from the back of the sofa perhaps!!!
Clearly Gerry didn't proof read...))
Great work Pat,read you for a while,first comments I've made,keep the faith..you're an inspiration.

Anonymous said...

I am broadly in agreement with Pat's theory. One thing that occurs to me though is that Gerry described what had happened as 'a disaster' as Pat explains instead of 'an accident', and I know what she means, but at the same time Gerry would not have said 'an accident' in the phone call because he wanted to stress an abduction.

Anonymous said...

I think like some others that the "accident" happened before the evening sophistication. Some tapas were inaugurated. They did not know exactly how to proceed. It was demonstrated a kind of musical, dance, they met away from the table to discuss. Someone decided to take the body away. When Kate went to the apartment and the child was gone, she said, "They've taken her," because she thought they would wait.

Pat Brown said...

But he wasn't stressing an abduction when he said "disaster," Anonymous 4:24. What is the disaster he is referring to? I have never heard of an abduction described as a disaster, a crime, yes, a horror, yes, but, disaster? A disaster is a mess that swirls about, not a straightforward crime that you have not contributed to. Let's think about the word "mess" or "disaster" with the pedestrian issue I brought up earlier in the comments, where a pedestrian walks out into the front of a car and gets killed. Now, if I were the driver and in full view of onlookers, some guy darted in front of my car and got killed, if I was obeying the law and had not been drinking or speeding, I would not say what had occurred was a disaster or a mess. It would be a horrifying incident, a tragedy, a shame, an accident. But, if I were drinking or looked down at a text message at the moment the guy ran out, I might called my sister and exclaim, "Oh, God what a mess!" or "It's a disaster!" because I am fearing what I am going to have to deal with, if I am going to be blamed, if I am going to jail, if I have just ruined my life.

I think that is exactly why Gerry McCann said, "It's a disaster!" rather than "Something horrible has happened, someone kidnapped Maddie." One of the most important things in study statement analysis is to pay attention to the first thing out of people's mouths. If Gerry blurted out "It's a disaster," I believe he had a reason to say that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat

I like the simplicity of your theory but the reason I think it happened earlier is because of their elaborate checking on the 3rd.

It's very clear from Mrs. Fenn's statement that checking on the 1st may have been only once an hour or longer so why on the 3rd did they ramp it up so much?

I think it was to put a shoddy ill thought out plan into action?

Anonymous said...

Actually Pat, I agree with your reasoning regarding the 'it's a disaster' comment, although I don't think Gerry chose those words as an alternative to 'there's been an accident' because he was on the phone to describe an abduction, and so perhaps it was a subconscious choice on his part.

P think you might agree with me that the 'it's a disaster' comment was a strange thing to say in any case, somehow it sounds impersonal, almost inconvenient, not the same thing at all as saying 'something terrible has happened' I don't know what other expression you might use in the circumstances?

dewi lennard said...

This analysis relies too heavily on two factors. One, the semantics of "disaster". Where and when was it actually said? Do we believe the person who related it? Isn't it possible that one person will use the word in preference to an alternative for reasons which have nothing to do with the strictly correct definition of the word?
Secondly, the taking of a body thru public streets to the beach. It is hugely unlikely that a man who we know to be as cunning as Gerry McCann would make this panic-stricken error. And you don't explain (although you have been to the place) - when he got the body to the beach, what then?

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 4:43

I don't see how increasing their coming and going at the table made for a better cover-up; it just ruins alibis because no one can remember when anyone was there; hence, probably that is one reason it IS hard for staff to remember exactly who was at the table when.

Secondly, there may have been a reason to escalate checking with the McCanns children crying the night before and with one of the children being sick (of course, it is pretty pitiful that these children were left when they had these problems but that is another issue).

Thirdly, we can't trust the actual check times or how many there really were and why. Whether they were at all accurate or whether who checked when and came back when and did what is still quite murky.

So, again, all I can say is I can't see an elaborate staging of dinner after knowledge that Maddie had died particularly useful or even possible. For all to be such consummate actors at that point would be hard to believe. After the discovery of a body, that everyone is distraught is a natural behavior, so once the alarm was given, emotions could be somewhat normal regardless of how the child died or who was involved. But, for all to know the child was dead and appear cheerful and conversational for the whole time they were at the Tapas restaurant, I find very unlikely.

Anonymous said...

This is a very interesting article. Regarding the question of why they did not let the story die down, my opinion is that the detective's book is just too damaging to their reputations. They have to keep going because not to will look suspicious... an the twins will ask more and more questions as they grow up.

Anonymous said...

Good points Pat,
I'm inclined to think similar though I can't help feel that perhaps some of the confusion could be intentional.There seems to be a bit of name dropping .ie;Phone call from Mrs Blair in KM's book,Clement Freud mentioned as cooking them meals after Maddie disappeared.Who wrote the book with the according to KM 'sinister title' collected as evidence?There are things in statements (namely Gasper statements) and in Kate's book which do cause me to think are they or someone part of something which would be far from good if it came out?After reading the statements there is no way I'd holiday with my family with DrP.Is there knowledge of others which buys a pass and silences others so to speak?Could this situation,a disaster be used for something much more?
Who was the person who couldn't be named?
Reading what's been put out, the statements, considering the disregard of the UK Cadaver dog by the McCs.The Aunt in Ireland giving a run down on their McCann family and where they are from.The person behind the name of the resort who also runs tours (I think that the tennis may have been part of Mark Warner tours according to one of the group.Mark Warner...as in US Senator?Did he change his plans in 2006?Also the name and position in society of that name (and connected family).. of a Man and his 3 sons who allegedly stayed there and flew out the next morning.Did they?where exactly where they stating and where were they on that night? How old are the sons?Old enough to babysit young ones?
If the fund paid Investigators to find Maddie.Why would (as reported in the Sunday Times recently) not allow them to follow the lead which they feel may achieve that aim?
The phone line people are reported to have said that the Investigators didn't follow the leads?Would they allowed to if they were useful?Did they know the leads weren't the one's they needed to follow?
The Sunday times reported that someone from the fund implied that the fund couldn't afford to follow both leads?At the time weren't millionaire backers paying the costs?
I'd imagine it's hard to do a job like that if you blocked from going in the direction you find to be one you need to go in and told to follow a direction you find to be a dead end.
could be staged

Anonymous said...

Woke and wandered, looking for her parents, and then met with a fatal accident perhaps? The door was left open to allow Madeleine if she woke up to get out of the apartment and 'come and find us' (according to Fiona Payne's rogatory interview, where she tells how Kate had this bright idea for what Madeleine should do if she woke up).

If this happened, the important questions would have to be Who found her? and What did they do?

Anonymous said...

I know, isn't that incredible, anonymous 6.17, that the door was left open so that Madeleine could get out of the apartment if she had to?

I don't like the idea of locking them in either, what if there was a fire? But then that's why most people stay in with their young children isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Just occurred to me today, after years of waiting for the truth to out, which I think Pat brown you are spot on, that if my child was missing, and her cadaver was picked up in the boot of my rental car...I'd probably ( if innocent) be extremely interested in who had previously rented it. But in all of the interviews I have seen I've never seen the Mccann's show any interest in this. Why? I suppose for the same reason Kate left her other two kids in an apartment alone when maddie had been taken, and the reason gerry set about deleting phone messages when he was frantically looking for his daughter. Funny eh!

henry said...

Excellent. Logical, erudite, compassionate...

Have Scotland Yard got people like you? How would those experts advise on strategy in order to obtain a confession and the closure of the whole saga...?

(Given that G appears v v well connected and it would be counter productive to humiliate K&G and thereby all their 'friends'... so it would have to appear kind, merciful in way, that allows a new "tragedy" story to be told?)

Anonymous said...

Seems rather difficult to me for a drugged toddler to accidentally suddenly die with perhaps a lot of blood. All is possible, so is murder, so I am not convinced that your theory is the probable explanation.
Speaking of probable, I thought I'd read somewhere that the Portuguese police investigation has a secrecy act over it. So the simplest explanation for the whole new dead suspect in the newspaper, is that it sources from not the police.

Anonymous said...

young ones wander and can open doors.The parents appeared to dismiss this far too quickly.


Anonymous said...

Thanks Henry , I hope I'm right in thinking that this isn't going to be another white wash . The justice system will need to play them at their own game, they're clever...but I reckon cracks are appearing. The body language on crimewatch, creaky chair gate was priceless. I reckon the truth is closer to being outed than ever. People are talking, no one can understand ...not what they are saying...but what they're not. You've only got to google mccann and you see page after page of everyone thinking the same, the writing is on the wall.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6.55

On holidays one of my children (3yrs) got into my medication very early on our first morning.We arrived late the previous night and I unfortunately hadn't put my handbag (with my medication) out of reach.He was wobbly on his feet when we first saw him that morning.He came looking for us in our room (of the unfamiliar holiday accomodation).He was rushed to the hospital and thank God suffered no long term ill effect.I will never forget it.Seeing how he was it is not hard to believe that he could have easily bumped his head or something during that time.I think my medication may have increased internal bleeding too.Children do injured themselves in any case.Most don't need to ask a Doctor to know that.That's why they need care and protection.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat Brown,
Leaving children unattended is not what many expect from Doctors.Why should anything else be what or as people would expect?Does confusion sometimes have the potential to reign supreme?Could the way things were said to be allow anyone to be dumped in it or dumped in something?
Did Mrs Fenn heard a child crying for her Daddy for an extended period of time on the 1st.Has that Daddy said that he was sorry he didn't hear her referring to Maddie?If we don't see what we expect to see does that necessarily rule things out or is ruling that out an assumption?

Anonymous said...

Sedated children can't speak
Young children tend to be naturally honest.
Maddie and Daddy do sound the similar.
Crying from a child or an adult could sound the same.

Anonymous said...

As in the JFK assassination, it's not who killed him but who had the power to keep the lid on it!
Same with MM, who has the power to control the British Government?

John said...

Dear Pat,

For English people, in a figurative sense, a dinner can be named a disaster, holidays can be named a disaster, when they're ruined by some bad (or even worse) events.
It doesn't mean that somebody died accidentally.

Anonymous said...

if so and the word disaster is used to describe such meaningless events its the wrong word for an Englishman who is the Father of the missing child to use to describe this .

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2270-madeleine-mccann-the-role-of-michael-wright

totally odd and very sad.


Em said...

I'm with you on the 'cover up because they had too much to lose' front. It seems the most likely way for it to have gone down. While I'm not convinced of their involvement I do feel being a seemingly valid possibility it needs to be taken much more seriously. Particularly with evidence such as holding back the e-fits coming out.

It's interesting how strongly many feel that it is 100% impossible that the McCanns could have had any involvement in what happened to their daughter. Perhaps because it's hard for people to believe that two seemingly good, and professional, people could do such a thing? I've had to bow out of a couple of 'conversations' on the topic because of strong reactions.

Anonymous said...

who was it had the 1st floor apartment?I'd be watching babes like a hawk night and day if my room had a balcony.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the political support issue... there are many conspiracy theories, but the problem with conspiracy theories is that they assume that those in power are better organised than they actually are.

I would tend to assume first (based on Occam's razor) that the same argument that Pat puts forward to account for the bizarre behaviour of the Mccanns - namely, blind panic in a crisis - can also be invoked to explain the behaviour of the authorities.

So the whole thing begins to seem a disorganised farce rather than an orchestrated plot.

That is my opinion only.

Anonymous said...

Pat,

I agree that the McCann's covered this up because they had too much to lose.

What puzzles me however, is the flurry of phone calls made by the McCann's, (totalling about 30)on the 2nd May, (starting about 8am in the morning), and Gerry's 16 deleted text messages on that same day.

The night before on the 1st May, Mrs Fenn had heard Maddie crying for 75 minutes.

What are your thoughts on this Pat?

Anonymous said...

How would Mrs Fenn know if the crying she heard was Maddie or even from one child rather than more or even if the crying was from a child or an adult or a combination of both?
If someone heard crying out it's easy to assume it was from a child and to assume again that that child was MADDIE and again assume that she is would be crying and calling out for her DADDY?

Pat,Smart people may know how people such as yourself expect things to be?
I don't think that it can be ruled out that they whoever they may be did take her.

Anonymous said...

Paul, I agree with you. I do not believe in some odd secret behind political support. The parents associate themselves with big names to scare their critics off. They want to appear untuchable. The parents are not "mighty" but want people to believe that. So they take any opportunity for photo-ops with mighty people. It is purely a scare-game I believe. /Catherine

Anonymous said...

Catherine, thanks for that! It's not always a popular view to take, but it I think it is important to be as down-to-earth as possible. When 'mainstream' commentators hear stories about MI5 or Freemasonry they simply roll their eyes (rightly or wrongly) and that does Madeleine no good. We need to be able to engage with them in ways that don't just get shot down as "conspiracy nutters!"....get them talking for a change.
Paul

Anonymous said...

Catherine,
Do you seriously think that everyone would be able to just associate with such people just to appear to be mighty?

Anonymous said...

Anon @6:56
No, not everyone would. But it is the 'mighty' people who have actually believed it to be to their advantage to associate with the McCanns (at least so far). The exploitation has been mutual: Leveson gets column inches for his inquiry by involving the McCanns. In return, the McCanns get his kangaroo court exoneration. In a political world bereft of substance everything is about media perception,and the McCanns sell a particular perception that panders to what some people want. The 'mighty' are rarely so mighty at all, they are usually insecure and paranoid, they jump upon each and every bandwagon that might make them look more "human" - caring - or influential. When the screen eventually falls, the mighty are usually seen for what they are...non-entities, parasites in this particular case. At least I think so.
Paul

56cheffy said...

Totally agree with this and I think that Jane Tanners sighting of the alleged abductor was made up.
So that begs the question. If she didn't see someone carrying a sleeping child, (btw I have never ever seen anyone carry a sleeping child in the way) then DI Redwood is telling porkies when he says that someone has come forward identifying himself as the person tha Tanner saw tha night, DI Redwood even told us that he was shown the clothes and the pyjamas that the man and the child were wearing that night.

Anonymous said...

I also agree with Anonymous regarding the point of view that truly mighty people (not the Maccanns) are far less organized than the public often believes. Such is also the truth for "media".
I do not think there was any conspiracy at any level to begin with. But I do think that there was enough people in powerful positions with a heart and they wanted to support this family who was not scared to contact them so frequently, from the very beginning. As such they became associated with the parents before anyone suspected them of anything. Today it will hurt quite a few people in power if the parents are found guilty. It is almost as they have became " hostages" in a quite dirty gane the never wanted to play. This goes for the British government as well.
/Catherine

Anonymous said...

The problems I have are the following; Traces of cadaverine can only be omitted two hours after loss of life, so mathematically if these dogs that did the work and found evidence of such an smell, then a body would of have to been there for 2 hours maybe slightly less, this in itself completely challenges the alleged timeline. The only other possibility is that a body was brought back into 5A after, which is also very unlikely but none the less, cadaverine was picked up and it takes two hours to form cadaverine. So based on that alone, the scent of death wouldn’t be in the apartment unless a body had chance to produce cadaverine, so the question of the hour is when and how did this smell get in 5A before 22.00 or after?
Secondly releasing vital e-fits 5 years later, seems a bit odd to say the least, when you’re looking for a missing child but from what I understand there was an injunction preventing the public release of these images, if my child was missing I would dig up the Country with a T spoon and spend my whole life in doing so. On their first TV interview Kate admitted she hasn’t physically looked for her child, which is beyond comprehension for any responsible parent looking for a lost child, there were opportunities to stage a reconstruction, which the parents refused to do, which yet again is madness, if you’re looking for your child.
I agree with your option 3 theory and the general consensus is online and in the UK that, all these new developments have a “Smoke and mirrors” effect to the whole situation, I’m not jumping on a band wagon here, I donated to the fund on multiple occasions and shared the posters to the find MC on all my business and social internet sites.
There are so many contradictions and I do believe its only a matter of time before the truth comes out, I also believe Mr Stephen Birch has a credible theory but no one wants to know or even consider what he has invested a load of time and money into, this now in the interest of humanity to solve this and for the safety and responsible parenting for children everywhere in the world.
Thanks
Jamie


Anonymous said...

Also, some people have asked why the parents have continued their campaign if they are guilty. I believe there are a few reasons. Remember Kate has quit her old job and now works with the "search" as her new career. They both obviously like the fame it has brought upon them. They want to stay in the limelight. This career is profitable enough with people buying books and giving money to the "search". Then, how smart was it to continue? We do not know yet. It can really go either way. /Catherine

Anonymous said...

Why didn't Kerry Needham get the support that the UK Government gave and is still giving the McCann's?

Is it because the McCann's are doctors and because of their social standing?

Or is it because of Gerry's connection to nuclear medicine and knowing Gordon Browns brother?

Anonymous said...

Pat. I couldn't find any answer from you to Julie Moon's question yesterday 2:04 about "smell of decomposition". And to Jamie 8:11 today: Scent of cadaver is developing 20 minutes after death. Scent of death sticks to a surface or e.g. clothing when corpse has been in contact with it for about 85 minutes. These info is from a master thesis at a Norwegian university.
Regards
Bjørn

Anonymous said...

I don't know what happened to her and your scenario is as likely as any. But what kind of parent would give a child a drug to subdue them so they could go out partying? Especially when they could well afford to get a sitter. We are not talking about destitute people that live in a tent in the woods or something.
The answer is a doctor (or two) that is full of hubris. And you also have a world full of people that believe others, such as doctors, could never, ever possibly do anything wrong.

Anonymous said...

Saw an interview with Kate's mother (sorry, can't remember where/when) where she's talking about the moment she received Gerry's phone call and she says that upon hearing Gerry crying on the phone: "There's been a disaster,it's a disaster", she immediately thought they had been in a car crash!

But...I can't help the feeling that there is much more to this story than the accidental death of the child of a couple of middle-class doctors, due only to their neglectful behavior and subsequent panic about the most likely destruction of their future lives both in their jobs as doctors and as parents to the twins. There has to be other "stuff", major complex and highly compromising "stuff" for other people besides the McCanns and friends...powerful people, with reputations to defend, images to protect, people who just cannot afford to be implicated and named in association to this story...how else can one explain the high degree of protection given to the Tapas9 by the full might of not one, but three british prime-ministers, and the governements of two countries (UK and Portugal)? Why would a couple of "nobodys" be granted with such an unprecedented and incomprehensible level of assistance?! I don't think it is the McCanns who are being "protected"...it has to go much deeper...

Anonymous said...

I think that Mr. Pete Claridge has a point...Gerry McCann must have been absent/away from the group for some time, and it is proven by the timetables concocted by the group and which were written down on the covers of Madeleine's activity sticker book.
Tanner tells that she didn't mention seeing "Bundleman" to Kate and Gerry until the next day. Kate told in her book that Jane didn't mention it because she didn't want to distress them(!), however, in the timeline the Tapas9 put together before the police arrived (which is in itself a very strange action, to put up a timeline instead of looking for the child),written by Russel O'Brien, there is the mention to Jane Tanner's sighting: In timeline #1:
9.20/5 - Ella Jane checked 5D sees stranger & child
Timeline#2:
9:20pm Jane Tanner checks 5D - [sees stranger walking carrying a child]

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
Timeline produced on Madeleine's sticker book, 03/04 May 2007

Where are Kate and Gerry while these timelines are written down? They had to be elsewhere, otherwise they had to be aware of Tanner's sighting immediately, NOT the following day! If we believe Kate and Jane, that Jane only informed the McCanns of her sighting the next day or hours later, then we have to come to the conclusion that Gerry was away, God knows where, doing WHAT...!

Anonymous said...

Pat, I have followed this case over the course of time and have researched both stories, Botha yours and the original investigators, and the McCanns, and I have to say, I find a lot of missing pieces to both puzzles. While I certainly see your theory as possible, I can't help but feel that you are blind sighted by your minds belief that the McCanns guilty of such unimaginable, psychotic crimes. I think you need to take a step back and re-examine the other story, rather than trying to play Inspector Morse and jumping to your own theoretical conclusions. Isn't there a chance you could be wrong? I would like for you to be correct, so that the truth came out, but I can't help but see the flaws in your theory. If the McCanns are guilty, then they should be publicly hanged, drawn, quartered, stoned, spat at and shit on, but I do think you've lost perspective too and you are letting your opinion and your already decided mindset rule over the facts.

annonamous said...

Could it be possible that David Payne and GM are paedaphiles and share their children, this seems plausible in view of the statements from their friends who had previously holidayed with them? Maddie was used that night with unexplainable and fateful injuries, hence Gerry getting help from his friends with getting rid of her body and the allibi. However the wives were not aware and are innocent. I cannt understand why Dr Payne said what he did on a previous holiday, this surely has to be further investigated. KM being innocent, may explain the initial massive push for publicity to find her? Perhaps Km knew about the sexual abuse but had no involvement in her death/murder. Just think most genuine accidents even ones caused by neglect could have been explained away.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous at 11:59.

I hardly see where you could read my book and my blogs and think I am basing my analysis on emotions rather than facts. The only reason I have a "mindset" is because the facts point that direction.

I have never declared the McCanns guilty of any crime other than neglect which is a crime they admitted to committing even if they themselves do not considered what they did a crime. What I have said is the evidence, both physical and behavioral, should put the McCanns as the top suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and if you cannot see that this is what the evidence supports, you are the one with a mindset that does not allow you to consider the McCanns' involvement, that you believe considering their involvement to be wrong without enough proof for conviction and that is not the way policing works; one must be able to consider probable cause ENOUGH to focus on certain people and forward the investigation. If one considers nothing strong enough to focus on anyone, then there simple isn't enough evidence of to determine anything.

The fact that the McCanns have undermined the PJ investigation from the very beginning and prevented their own PIs from releasing the e-fits is one very good reason to consider them suspects even if there was not so much other evidence pointing toward them. Yes, there may be explanations for everything and they may end up being innocent of Maddie's disappearance and death, but, right now, the evidence supports the arguido status of the McCanns and Amaral and the original PJ were correct in assigning that status to them.

Pat Brown said...

Annanomous,

It could indeed be true that Gerry McCann and Payne are pedophiles, but we have no evidence to prove that at this point which is why I don't base any of my analysis on this possibility. One person's statement (Gasper) as to what she thinks she saw at a dinner table one night and how she perceives that is not evidence to me. What she described sounded like an inside joke but whether it was about Maddie or sex with children or whether she even really saw that, we can't be sure. Not conclusive enough for me to judge. So, unless something comes out, which could have with further interviews with the Tapas 9 and other people, I don't want to make up a scenario that includes sexual abuse because we don't know that this exists. Take for example, however, the medicating of the children does have evidence supporting the possibility this could have happened. We have Kate's toddlers who never woke up, Kate checking their breathing, Kate stating in her book she thinks Maddie was drugged (by someone else), and the motive need to not have her children crying again when they went to the Tapas. Hence, there is something to support the theory that medicine was given to Maddie which may have resulted in contributing to her accident (or may not have but it was in her system and could have be deemed as questionable as to its purpose when the parents administered the drug and then left the medicated child unattended). The pedophilia theory simply does not have any support at this point to any extent and that is why I don't include it in my analysis.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 10:23

I think I did answer the previous issue of time required for the dogs to be able to identify a cadaver having been at a location, but I want to thank you for your info on the Norwegian study. There has been a lot of debate about how long the body has to be in place before it can be detected by dogs. It used to be 3 hours, but then it when to 2 hours, and now it is being claimed it can be much less. Hence, the science of the exact timing is not really great, so I hate to be too dependent on that to determine when Maddie would have had to die in the apartment for dogs to hit there. If we go with the shorter time, the McCanns could have left, Maddie came out, climbed on the sofa and fell. If were require longer times, then it would seem Maddie would have had to fallen while the McCanns were in the flat, which is actually possible, if they put the kids down earlier with their meds, were having wine on the veranda or their own room when Maddie came out and fell. They could even have been having it in the kitchen, chatting, backs turned and Maddie came out, fell behind the sofa, and then they sat down on it, never realizing she was behind it. A little wine, a little tipsiness, and tendency to neglect one's children, maybe they just didn't realize Maddie had had an accident and never checked on the kids one more time before they went out. I really cannot be sure of the exact time of death, but the most interesting issue is the dog hitting behind the sofa which is why that evidence (along with other evidence) leads my to theorize that it was indeed an accident; there is no other good reason her body would be behind the sofa; no one hides a body there. It is such an odd place for the dogs to hit that it is adds a very strong piece of evidence to the mix.

Lesley said...

I just thought to post this link for those who believe a fall from such a short distance onto tiles could not be accidental. It's sombre reading indeed- but puts into perspective the odds between Madeleine dying in the apartment accidentally and being somehow abducted?
http://www.sbsreferences.com/SharedFiles/Download.aspx?pageid=64&mid=173&fileid=68

The actual injury caused by the fall may not be instantaneously fatal(Although it can be) but can lead to severe concussion and vomiting which may then cause a fatality through choking,Madeleine would have had to been left unattended for an hour or two at least for this to occur.
In addition, this paper also explains injuries such as neck and spinal trauma which may have caused instant death but without much blood loss ie. The McCanns may not have had a huge clear-up job to execute as some anti-theorists suggest...
Sadly and chaotically these awful accidents occur everywhere and with more frequency than abduction from a sleepy holiday village,through a window on a main road without leaving a fingerprint.

Pat Brown said...

Good stuff, Lesley. Also, there is positional asphyxiation which can kill anyone quite quickly.

Anonymous said...

As far as the reason for the "support" at least the more recent support by UK Prime Minister David Cameron, to reopen the investigation, is that the government, Cameron and his Home Secretary Theresa May, were threatened by Rebecca Brooks one of Rupert Murdoch's people at the Sun that if the case was not reopened they would splash her face across the paper every day for a month. The papers were making a huge amount of money from the story and were at the time printing bits of Kate's book in the Sun; Ms Brooks was in charge of that relationship and the campaign to get more mileage out of the McCann investigation for a simple reason - greed. If it bleeds it leads and they were not done flogging the McCann story. The government was susceptible to this threat because Murdoch's papers are highly influential with the readers, after the election that put Cameron in as the new PM the Sun splashed "It was the Sun wot won it" as a headline - there is no doubt of the undue influence Murdoch and his team have on UK politicians. As far as why the ambassador was there so quickly McCanns and their friends did indeed have friends in high places which does not require a conspiracy - the UK is a small country and there are few degrees of separation between anyone in the middle class and someone who knows the PM or one of his staff. They also had as Madeleine's god father or the husband of her god mother, Jon Corner and the decision to go to the papers with this early and often despite the PJ request not to do so as it could put Maddie in harm's way did garner a lot of attention. These would not be the first publicly elected officials to want to be seen on the right side of a huge breaking story. Rebecca Brooks is now under indictment for a number of crimes including bribing police and hiding evidence and was at or near the top of a chain of command at the papers when the News of the World's policy of illegal tapping of phone messages scandal broke.

Anonymous said...

In terms of the panic reaction and hiding the body of a child who died under neglectful circumstances or worse,I agree that this is highly possible for this pair. What initially made me move to this view was not the evidence uncovered by the PJ, but their own behavior. They fled Portugal and then while maintaining and promoting the firm belief that Maddie had been abducted by a pedophile, they caused the Pj much time delay as they had to go through a "rogatory" process in order to have the couple and their holiday companions interviewed in the UK. No one who thinks their child may be alive in this kind of torment would put even a moment's delay here or fail to encourage their friends to return to Portugal to reconstruct the night, regardless if they felt their supposed timeline of checking might come under scrutiny. The kind of people who could do this would be beyond narcissists. Then too failing to include the efits their investigation had produced of the man seen carrying a little blond girl that night, in case it might "distract" readers, because of the strong resemblance to Gerry McCann - there is an incredible strain of selfishness running right through McCanns' behavior.

Anonymous said...

Pat, we are aware that the PJ had forensic scientists looking at possible spots near Pria de Luz where a body could be hidden. There are a number of cases that show that the body when hidden by parents will be near the place they live or are staying; will be dressed for sleep; will be enclosed in some womb-like fashion and will be within a certain distance of the road; will be visited more than once by parents for whatever reason, to make sure the body is still hidden; we saw all of this in the Caylee Anthony "abduction" faked by her mother. There is also some evidence that parents move the body and while I don't think they would pack a mummified corpse to remove it to the UK, a more suitable burial ground or hiding spot that is less prone to discovery either by the police or by marauding animals would not be out of the question here. Any ideas on this - as to where madeleine could have been hidden initially and then finally?

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 2:13

Some of that can be true, some of the time.

Here is my top thought of where Maddie's body could be buried if the McCanns are involved

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/03/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-find.html

Anonymous said...

Pat,maybe oldfield was the one who was supposed to discover madeline gone??

Anonymous said...

Why all the protection afforded to the McCanns'? Good point!

I have always thought the all shebang was down to tribal loyalties and ideological conditioning but, no doubt, there is more to it.

Gerald "Gerry" McCann was at the time (2007) part of a multi-disciplinary governmental commission that studied the impact of nuclear power plants in the UK environment.

You will recall that when Kate finds Madeleine had gone missing (in her "official" version of events...) nor her, her husband or their friends, contacts the Portuguese authorities for help.

The alarm is raised some thirty minutes (after Kate "dramatic appearance on stage") by a member of staff of the so-called "Tapas Bar".

Gerry, instead of alerting the Portuguese authorities straight away, decides to call a "Belfast University professor" (quote) who is reported to have been a consultant to Tony Blair's government and was at the time (2007) with the government of Gordon Brown.

Incidentally, this contact could have been made thanks to his medical studies, his recent research or a combination of both. Not clear.

The story goes, Rupert Murdoch's SKY breaks the news of Madeleine's demise, some time BEFORE the Portuguese authorities are informed of the crime - suggesting this was thanks to the good offices of Gordon Brown or someone in his close circles.

Also important to remember that Clarence "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell - the McCanns' spokesman, was at the time, working for PM Brown(...)

Now, if Gerry McCann had access to data of the British government nuclear programme,(depending on its sensitivity) no one in government had any idea of what kind of damage a jilted, researcher with inside knowledge, could inflict upon the executive - if mishandled. Someone had to come to his rescue straight away.

Gerry would have become, potentially at least, a kind of a loose canon which could, if left to his own devices, compromise the reputation of the British nuclear programme on an international scale. Far-fetching, I know, even if other, more dramatic inferences, are possible.

Clarence "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell, at the time prime minister Gordon Brown's Head of Media Monitoring, decides, soon afterwards, to use the Madeleine McCann case ("a perfect storm" - as he puts it) to further his career. The rest is History.

Mitchell leaves the government, goes to work for Freud Communications (PR) while moonlighting for The F. Madeleine's Fund.

Incidentally, Matthew Freud (of Freud Communications) is married with Elizabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert Murdoch. Small world, right?

On the other hand, Rebekha Brooks the "Sun" Chief Editor (2007) later (2009) "News International" Chief Executive was married to Charlie Brooks (2009)- a very close friend of PM David Cameron since their days at Eton College(...)

It is in fact Rebekha Brooks who, admittedly, makes it possible for the "Sun" newspaper to publish (2011) that famous front-page letter to the Prime Minister written by the McCanns which brings Cameron and Scotland Yard's into the McCanns' bandwagon- thus compromising Scotland Yard's legendary reputation (if we discount the on-going allegations of corruption...)

Need I go on? Oh! Nearly forgot!

"Mickey Mouse" Mitchell, has just been nominated by David Cameron as a Conservative candidate for Brighton and Hove in the next UK General Elections.

A.

Further references:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/interactive-graphics/9124278/Whos-who-in-the-Chipping-Norton-set.html

Anonymous said...

I feel that despite Gerry McCann's good connections to people in power, government agencies, sensitive studies on radiation, etc., that's not what the protection is all about...it's more in the lines of a common activity/practice they all share and indulge in, an "adult" life style, which albeith not illegal is censored and not well accepted by society...and the Ocean Club is/was just one of the many places where gatherings were organized...

Anonymous said...

I suggest reading Textusa's most recent posts on her blog, about DNA in apartment 5A:


http://textusa.blogspot.pt

"Remarkable Marksmanship"

"DNA - The Bar Code"

Anonymous said...


Pat, I completely agree with scenario 3 - it was my initial instinct and feeling as soon as I saw these two being interviewed that the child had died unintentionally and they were not prepared to be criminalised, lose their twins, serve prison time, be at risk of attack, be shamed internationally. My point has always been this: who better to dispose of the body of a child with the least emotion than a trained and longstanding practicing surgeon? ie Gerry. He would know, for example, how to bleed the body out into the sea, cut the body into small pieces quickly and efficiently with due to his training far less emotional reaction and far more proficiently. Surgeons are trained to cope with the death of child patients who may die at their hands, trained to maybe make an error which kills patient in a viable operation, trained to cope with losing a whole load of patients in horrific circumstances like b*mb attacks, massive road traffic accidents etc and the LIVE WITH IT. Some of them drink, some of them use self-prescribed drugs, some of them gain drugs from colleagues, some of them cut their emotions of to the point of becoming sociopathic. Gerry is a control freak, this is witnessed in his body language. Kate is not, she is only a GP (the medical equiv of bottom feeding) she can't hold it together. She is literally dying. She will die, I guarantee it from a heart attack or stroke or aneurism within the next couple of years take look at her anyone can see it. Or suicide? If she commits suicide will she take the twins? Will she 'fess up before? The only way the Tapas crew have maintained support during this time is if the McCanns have incriminating knowledge on all of them. After all, no one is perfect, and who working in medicine doesn't make the odd fatal error which would be page one of the red tops if they didn't all cover up for each other or who hasn't lied about their exam results or suchlike. Or maybe they really were all swingers / paedos. Who knows. But Gerry & Kate know. And the twins are at high risk of being murdered right now.

Anonymous said...

Also, Pat, re the Jonbenet Ramsey murder - recent opened files show the family (parents) were responsible if I understand correctly? The father tried to prevent the files from being opened to the public. During some recent news reports I noted how incredibly similar the mother and father interact and how during organised interviews he watches her like a hawk, the same as Gerry watches Kate, and yet it is her who does all the talking whilst he stays fairly quiet. These are incredibly different appearances from couples who have genuinely lost a child to murder, such as the Paynes, in the UK - where that murder of Sarah Payne was fully proven to have been conducted by a paedophile murderer and yet for a certain period of time the police press and public were led to believe the most likely suspects were either the father or one of the brothers. The sheer grief expressed by those parents during the time before their daughter was located and the murderer identified never remotely resembled the behaviour of the Benets or the McCanns even though they were key suspects and subsequently they have split up due to not being able to live together under such duress and grief. This is not the only case where parents of young murder victims cannot continue to stay together due to their grief. Yet the McCanns show zero affection and cling onto each other like liferafts. Kate is the weakest link. She will break. But if she breaks and doesn't confess, Gerry will murder her the children and then suicide. I reassert my point those twin children are at the highest possible risk of murder they must be removed for safety.

Anonymous said...

Re 'disaster' - in my (UK) intellectual reference, a 'disaster' is the destruction of not just one person or one situation but the destruction of an entire set of scenarios. A natural disaster kills scores of people and life before will never be the same again for not only the victims' families but the entire infrastructure of the location. Gerry's 'disaster' was not just a fatality (which could be a tragedy) but in his eyes became a catestrophic disaster beyond his control in the same way as a natural disaster as it not only meant a person is dead but that an entire set up is finished, destructed, his job, her job, forever destroyed - struck off, the twins removed by social services, their family relationships, their professional circles, their friendship circles, and in the eyes of the law and the general public and the prison population child killers. They would have been effectively judged pretty similarly to Baby P's mother etc and if there ws anything worse occuring the whole Tapas Crew and their children nd their jobs and social connections drawn into it. That is a disaster.

Anonymous said...

From what I have read Kate isn't just a GP she initially specialised in gynaecology but later changed to become an anaesthetist.

Did she mention, in her book receiving a phone call from Mrs Blair after Maddie went missing?
Sir Clement Freud too.Isn't one of his children married to a Murdoch?Do they have anything to do with that Freud business Clarence went to work for?

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Pat, I think there was a terrible accident and the parents covered it up because they did not want to lose everything, and there but for the grace of God go all of us. I think the same thing happened with the Ramseys, and like previous posters I have had many moments where the similarities have been obvious to me

Anonymous said...

Hallo Pat Brown,

best wishes from germany. Thank you very much for your analyses. Feel free to correct my grammar and spelling.

First, gaspard-Statement: I do agree completely with you. misleading!

Second: Why the McCanns continue pressing for more help? First, as you said, stopping the campaign would be suspicious. Second, I fear: They have hidden the body so good, that there is no really danger for them...

Third: Why this massive protection by mighty people? Thats also for me zhe greatest miracle in this case. because this case had no political background. Here is my answer: many many people of influence, from David Beckham to Rowlings, from Tony and Cherrie Blair to the pope, decided much to early pro-McCann, without risking a closer look on the case. And now they can't leave at all. In germany we say: "Jetzt kommen sie aus der Nummer nicht mehr raus!" or "Jetzt müssen sie immer weiter tanzen!" (Now they must dance again and again)

Forth: I don't know, if you remarked it yet. I got some quite interessting informations about some medical backgrounds. My brother is anaesthetist. he told me some important things. First (I presume, you know THAT!): It is just impossible for a foreign intruder, to anaesthesize 3 little children. Anaesthesizing children always needs the help of the parents. Second, there ist a phaenomenon called "paradox anaesthezizing". Children who are anaesthezized paradoxical, gets wild and are out of controll, allthough they are tired in a way. Accidents follow often. As my brother told me a "paradoxical anaesthezising" is the nightmare of every doctor, every nurse in a children-hospital. Perhaps we had a sort of paradoxical anaesthesizing in this case. I don't know if you had this in mind (I haven read yout book until today).

best wishes from germany

"pfiffi"
http://truecrime.forumieren.com/f6-vermisstenfall-maddie-mccann

Anonymous said...

Pat
I do not believe there is any trace of a body because Gerry of all people would know to dispose like a butcher in small pieces into the sea. Or incinerated or some other permanent destruction. I do not think it is a straightforward accidental death - to go to this extreme (despite parental neglect) would require an additional factor - that could be as simple as the fact that not only one 3yr old child was left alone but two tiny babies were also left alone OR that on analysis there would be traces of medication either recent use or within the last 6-12 mths if a good hair strand analysis was used. Or if Madeleine had cuts / bruises from genuine violent abuse or worse yet if she would have been show by pathologists to have been sexually assaulted. It would not take such extremes for two narcissists (or one controller and one lost submissive) to find a cover up story. Just leaving children alone would be enough to have their twins removed and them suspended from duties at work / sacked. It could be something so simple or horribly something so awful. Regardless, they KNOW she is dead they are not looking for her in the genuine sense they are trying to baffle the general public whom they perceive to be stupid.

Anonymous said...

re cadaver dogs

Lets not forget Gerry is a surgeon his wife is a GP. Maybe they returned and found their child appearing to be dead or in the throes of dying (in a non blood loss manner), ie severe head injury, liver / kidney failure / severe internal injury - ruptured intestines in the case of sexual abuse or nothing like that in the case of something far more innocent BUT they had left 3 tiny children alone and one was dying. They could not involve the authorities. However, Madeleine may not have died for many hours, therefore cadaver dogs timeline would be different -or- they may have been well aware she was dying or likely to die long in advance of the actual death therefore creating a different story - people who check a non moving child to see if she is safe are hardly likely to consider her dead. OR if there was sexual abuse there could have been internal traces of semen, use of condoms etc which cannot be cleansed if a child needs intensive care for say, anaphylactic shock from a bite or severe food poisoning from eating dodgy prawns.

Anonymous said...

following on from the last anon
there would reasons why a body and an autopsy may not be wanted even if there was an accident
which resulted in death.An autopsy would reveal everything.

The state and health of a body and it's organs can tell the life history of a person.


Anonymous said...

Read the news today.
It's a disgrace!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Gerry is not a surgeon, as has been assumed by some commentators, he is a Cardiologist. (Mind you, working on cadavers is part of any doctor's training, I believe.)

This article spells out the differences between a cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiology

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the logical theory, Pat.

I think if this situation had occurred in the USA then they might be in jail by now, given the dog evidence.

Their body language gives them away, and the changes of story too.

I am from England myself.

Anonymous said...

Anon November 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM "feels" the protection afforded to the McCanns'" it's more in the lines of a common activity/practice they all share and indulge in, an "adult" life style" (quote).

Well, anything is possible but... why a cover up?

Is there a video of Kate flying on the trapeze with Gordon Brown or some other VIP political and/or royal entity?

Clarence Mitchell? Gerry sleeping with erm...let me see... Rebekha Brooks? The Duchess of (what's her name?) Who, what, when, where, why? Specifically?

This is why I would rather hold on to "Occam's razor", unless I make the assumption Gordon Brown decided to cover up for his entourage and fellow Scotts sexual antics which, quite frankly is pushing the limits and sounds rather textusy to me.

Imagined scenarios, no matter how well argued and written, are not (necessarily) a guarantee of truth. Furthermore, they start to loose appeal the more they drift away from Occam's principle.

Recap:

Back in the 14th century AD, William of Occam is reported to have written his immortal phrase: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" which is the one reason Amaral's theory and Pat Brown's pragmatic approach ring true and are so appealing.

The FACT is: Gerry McCann was part of such a scientific study or committee and ipso facto extremely well connected within university and scientific/medical circles.You only need to check Gerry McCann's research track to see that. Full stop.


Now add to that "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell mis-en-scène, and you have a financial recipe for turning a molehill into a mountain (of gold).


"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

That is basically what Pat does, Amaral and his team did - and Scotland Yard does NOT.

No wonder Pat Brown is so successful in her predictions and her opinions are so highly rated.It may sound like praise but happens to be true.

A.

For other, stratospheric, writing and reading see here:

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Individual-Topics/Who-s-Outside-The-Box-A-Glossary-of-Characters-The-Sargeants-Inn-1-922148.html

Anonymous said...

ERRATA

Sorry Pat. It must be noted that it was Tony Blair who was in power when Madeleine disappeared in May 2007. Gordon Brown only comes into the picture in July (2007).

This erroneous detail does not affect my reasoning above in other respects. I think.

Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are bona fide Scots - if one wishes to read tribal loyalties and ideology at work here and/or as a concomitant factor.

Incidentally, Tony Blair was born in Edingburgh (Scotland) and Gordon Brown studied at Edinburgh's university.

Gordon Brown was in fact born in Giffnock, Renfrewshire - not far from Glasgow proper. Gerry McCann was born there too(Glasgow). Gerry's family was originally from Donegal (Northern Ireland).

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat,
After following the case intently I have a few things that throughout the story Ive noticed seemingly dont add up.
Please forgive me in advance for any errors.
Firstly if those children went to bed between 6.pm and 7pm what had they eaten and who fed them? Secondly what time were they bathed. Gerry claimed they had their milk and story.

As a mum myself Im not quite grasping how any mum with 3 babies could actually juggle all this in one hour so Im thinking somethings not quite right.
The timeline of GM, JT and GW isnt consistent as GW says he only spoke to GM for a few minutes.
What is a possible scenario is what if JT went in the apartment with GM and MM snook up on them and hid behind the couch and then popped her head up and by accident fell and hit her head. This could explain the blood behind the sofa in the wardrobe etc etc and will explain the inconsistencies in the story about who stood where in the road. Why was GM in JT's apartment that night?
The emotional hold GM has over all his chums, was when they agreed to lie for him because on that premise alone they are all now guilty of perverting the course of justice esp JT.
Watch cutting edges reconstruction he claims it was terrible when he had a really proud father moment. Ive compared that and Crimewatches reconstruction.. very interesting.



Anonymous said...

Watched a television program the other night.A mother with an adult son who had died.Even after he had passed away after the machines had been turned off she was still shouting don't take him,don't take my boy away from me,let me keep him .She needed to spend a long time with his body afterwards.She was given the time she needed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"I think if this situation had occurred in the USA then they might be in jail by now, given the dog evidence."

Like the Ramseys?

Anonymous said...

I do wish people would stop saying GM is a cardiac surgeon. It drives of nuts. Some then go on to say - so he is used to cutting people up etc. If you can't get his basic job right you can't be too hot on facts. G M is not my bus of tea but disinformation is his specialty.

Anonymous said...

The Gaspars' statements, on their own, appear insignificant and the sexual innuendo possibly an inside joke (as Pat Brown suggests) but when coupled to the facts that GM has a social services case file number and that the Social Worker (who came to the McCanns assistance the day after the 'abduction') who thought she recognized DP or GM from a previous case and promptly dismissed / dispatched then perhaps maybe the Gaspars' doubts were not unfounded.

Anonymous said...

Pat

I read the article on your thoughts where the body might be.

Surely the hire car story does not stack up. With the media and police spotlight on them surely they can not be moving a body three weeks after the event. Surely they were under surveillance?

Presumably the use of GM mobile west of Praia de Luz was known about immediately?

Was GM asked for a statement of these trips? or of subsequent trip to Spain?

ALso was GM asked the same 48 questions as Kate? and did he also refuse to answer? If not asked then why not?

Their behavior and choice of language in the many clips implies involvement to me but I can only conclude that the possibility of the body being found or proof of their involvement is now so low as to be negligible.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat I know if these two were American they would have been accountable years ago. I feel sick that these two are protected to such a crazy extent. We all know high official "sects" (Masons but probably much higher) exist and will protect the "brotherhood" by ANY MEANS at ANY COST. It is all about power, money and self gratification. These two are classic text book narcissists as it is but they are above the law because whatever "sect" they belong to are very, very, very high up and are indeed exempt. That is why you see their cock sure brazen approach, what else could it be?. I recognise the mccann's because I see my own parents in them. All I can ask as I am sure every caring mother on planet earth would want to ask is... Why did you wash Madeline's Cuddly toy the next day Kate?

Anonymous said...

Clear since initial few days that the information provided by the parents was inaccurate. Circumstantial evidence implies the following:
- Madeleine died in accident which parents believed could be blamed on them (leading to prison, loss of custody of other children).
- Accident happened between 5.30 and 7.15 pm, after children put to bed but before the parents had gone to dinner. [Note the efforts to provide an alibi around this time]
- All children given a very light sedative to help them sleep through the night while the parents were at dinner [Note the police observation on twins sleeping all night and Fiona Payne note that Kate was checking their breathing all night] no malicious intent; just didn’t want the children waking up and being scared if parents away at dinner.
- The parents were in their own bedroom getting ready for dinner. Madeleine woke up, despite sedative; got up, walked to living room window to look for parents who she presumed were in restaurant; unstable from sedative, fell and hit her head. Time around 7. Some minutes later, when she had already died, parents came out and found her.
- Despite being extremely distressed. They decide to cover it up. Madeleine’s body is hidden in a cupboard. Mrs McCann is deeply distressed; puts Madeleine’s toy – cuddle cat – with Madeleine in the cupboard.
- The parents give themselves two sets of tasks: Gerry goes outside to look for somewhere to hide Madeleine. Kate stays in apartment to clean (scrubs floor of blood and cleans clothing with blood). They use their cell phones to call and sms each other on progress. [Note: deleted sms messages and calls before phones given to police]
- Parents meet back at apartment; go to dinner later than planned.
- Kate ‘checks’ on children first. Around 9pm takes Madeleine out of the cupboard and cradles her in her lap to say goodbye [Note cadaver odour on Kate trousers), puts her back in the cupboard. Opens the window for the alleged abductor.
- During Gerry’s last visit (from the dinner table) to check on the children he moves Madeleine from the apartment to the location outside the apartment that he had identified earlier. He puts cuddle cat on Madeleine’s bed [Note: cuddle cat had cadaverine odour but the bed didn’t, which means that cuddle cat was in contact with a dead body but bed was not]
- Gerry returns to dinner. At 10.10 Mrs McCann goes to the apartment and sounds the alarm.
- All the friends come up to the apartment. They know nothing of the death. Mr. McCann tells everyone they will all be accused of negligence without timeline showing regular visits to the children. They hurriedly produce something. It provides an alibi for Gerry.
- Once everything is in motion the parents are finally able to release their distress. Testimony by Tapas group to UK police stated that Kate was banging her head against a wall, and Mr. McCann was on the floor of a bedroom in a feotal position (see Russel O Brien testimony). The actions of parents grieving for a death and not of parents searching for their daughter. Mrs. McCann calls for a priest.
What inspires the above scenario?
- The death must be before dinner because parents needed time to grieve, plan. And cadaverine odour usually takes +2 hours to be present. Assuming body no longer in apartment at 10.10 then death must no later than 20.05. And Kate had cadaverine odour on her trousers: implication is she held dead person on her lap at least two hours after death. The last time she could have touched Madeleine would have been during check circa 9pm. This puts death at around 7pm, latest.
- Some have suggested that death could have occurred much earlier. Unlikely. To be linked to the sedatives had to come after bedtime.
- Parents found themselves in nightmare situation having lost one child and facing the loss of the others. Took a quick decision which then took on a life of its own. Have suffered enormously; forced to relive scenario every day, unable to publicly grieve for deceased child. I bet if they could redo everything today they would simply have called the police.

Paul Meuse said...

Hello Pat,
I thought your scenario is well reasoned. I lived in the Netherlands in 2007, but when I was back in Ireland there was lots of sympathy for Gerry and Kate.
I was a mental health counselor in the 90s, and I've seen lots in life, and have a detective's mind. I knew that many, if not most children die from their parents killing them, a relative or person of trust, or accidents.
I didn't know what had happened, but I knew one thing: it's neglect to leave your children alone. I once went to check on my son and he was already climbing out of his crib, and that's one reason I checked because I knew he could accidentally pull it over on himself.
If they were not professionals and especially someone like a heart surgeon they would've been arrested and also charged with neglect. And, may well have lost custody of the twins.
Self preservation is a strong factor,(I know I was a Marine 'grunt' in Vietnam) and you're right about Gerry being on the road...what other choices did they have.
If it came out that Madeleine was drugged, no matter how little, and died that would've been 'a disaster.'

I believe that the truth will come out because one of them will breakdown from the weight of the burden of carrying on a fiction, and they cannot really grieve properly till they acknowledge the reality.
I believe that they need compassion at that time. But, a beautiful child died, and that may have been avoided had they done what most of us do...stay with the kids. thanks for your writing. I spent two years in Portugal so have the benefit of different views.

Anonymous said...

Dear pat
I LIVE IN THE UK, NOT FAR FROM THE MCCANNS. AFTER READING EVERYTHING I CAN ON THIS CASE I AND MANY OTHERS BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE NEGLECTED THEIR CHILDREN AND HAVE HAD INVOLVEMENT IN MADDIE'S DISAPPEARANCE. SOCIAL SERVIVES SHOULD HAVE REMOVED THE TWINS FROM THEIR CARE. WHAT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS WHY THE BRITSH POLICE HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SCENTS PICKED UP BY THE DOGS (THEY DO NOT LIE), WHY THEY CANNOT FORCE THESE PEOPLE TO HAVE LIE DETECTOR TESTS AND SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIG COVER UP BETWEEN FRIENDS, THE GOVERNMENT AND OTHER BODIES. WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE BEING PROTECTED?

Anonymous said...

Pat, it sounds to me like you are excusing what they have done as "panic" Panic or no panic they ARE responsible for the death of that poor wee girl and responsible for the amount of people they are stringing a long with their lies. You refer to the McCanns situation as a drunk driver. Anyone that drinks and drives is putting their life and the lifes of others in their hands. To a very big extent the driver is responsible as without Alcohol their reactions would be a lot quicker. Seems strange to me how you appear to be defending the McCanns "accident". AD

Pat Brown said...

Anon 8:06

Apparently, you are misunderstanding a profiler's analysis of what occurred with a personal emotional response. Read what I wrote again with an objective viewpoint of an analyst.

Anonymous said...

I agree 100% with this. No doubt whatsoever that this pair have been lying all along because, as you say, they felt they had just too much to lose.

Anonymous said...

On the day of the child's supposed addiction like the night Mrs fenn heard Madeleine crying for an hour and a half no one checked on their kids
Why would they have changed their routine the next 2 days
This could have been made up to show all the parents were not neglecting their children
It is also said Gerry was gone for 45 minutes so why would Tanner be checking when he had not yet returned from his turn at checking on the kids

Anonymous said...

Which of Kate's clothes had cadaver scent on them and when did she have these clothes on
As timing could be relevant afterwards if there were photo id
And she may not have washed them as they may have had the smell of maddie on them

Anonymous said...

Could the crying have been an adult heard by Mrs fenn and heard a word that could rhyme with maddie

Anonymous said...

Could the Cadever smell in the vehicle been from the same clothes

Anonymous said...

Did the pj take samples of all the children's hair soon after to check for abnormal redings

Martin said...

Thank you, pete claridge - until you pointed out that the Smith sighting of Gerry carrying Madeleine's body forced their hand, I had not understood why the complex abduction scenario the (intelligent?) McCanns invented was so badly botched, so full of logical holes, and how they and the T9 managed to contradict themselves and each other quite so often - and are still doing it. Clearly, having been caught in the act of disposing of Madeleine's body (though unbeknown to the Smiths at the time), Gerry and the T9 now had only an hour or so to invent a scenario in which an unknown abductor snatched the girl from her room in their absence and made off on foot, through the town, only to be spotted by the Smiths at the precise time Gerry had been seen.

Yes, as you have rightly said, Pat, a different scenario involving a daytime disappearance in or out of town would have been far easier to stage and free of complications with doors, windows, shutters, babysitting, neighbours, Ocean Club staff, mysterious snoopers etc etc. And that is very probably what had been planned. Where I differ from you is that I think (along with Dr Martin Roberts inter alia) that Madeleine died in the flat, probably in an accident, probably 2 days earlier or more. That would account for the cadaverine in the wardrobe (and elsewhere), because her body had briefly been stored there, and for all the anomalies in the creche records and the accounts of the children's activities in the last couple of days, with Madeleine's presence having to be faked. And of course Gerry and co would have had time to get their stories straight before raising the alarm on the morning of 4 May.

The body had still to be disposed of, however. Gerry's mistake was to head for the beach with it at around 9 pm on the 3rd - and run straight into the Smith family. So why, you ask, did he not opt for 4 am? I think this question was discussed at length and it was decided that, as no car was available, someone seen at 4 am (e.g. by the police, heaven forbid!) carrying either a child or (say) a large and heavy sports bag in the direction of the beach would have raised far more suspicion than someone carrying an apparently sleeping child (home?) between 9 and 10 pm, when it was suitably dark (or nearly) but the time was not totally unreasonable for a child on holiday to be out of bed, having visited friends, for instance. That Gerry ran straight into the Smiths, at close quarters, was sheer bad luck, or fate, if you will. But remember that the Smiths at the time assumed Madeleine was asleep in her father's arms, and thought little of it until weeks later, when they saw a news report featuring Gerry carrying Sean in the same way and recognised him immediately. So Gerry's gamble on 9 pm very nearly paid off. But he might well have been planning to take Madeleine's body away in the middle of the night before a discussion with, say, Matthew Oldfield persuaded him to take her away earlier. Which might account for Kate's surprised "They've taken her!".

As for the unprecedented political protection heaped on the McCanns, it seems to me that this can only stem from the high-level paedophile rings with which Gerry is said to be connected. No other issue could be sensitive enough to warrant such exaggerated smokescreen outpourings of cash and police time and (inter alia) the utter defamation of an impeccable police inspector, Gonçalo Amaral. Someone has a great deal to hide in this case.

Pat Brown said...

Martin,

While Gerry may have been seen carrying off a child which resulted in the Tanner story of a man doing the already having carried off a child in a different direction (therefore making "meaningless" the second sighting, there is still no way that this child died days earlier and a long and complicated plan was conjured up. All I can say as a profiler is it doesn't work that way; the evidence does not point to this and people do not cover up this way. The ONLY reason someone would carry a child off when people are still out and about is because he panicked. Believe me, carrying a dead child down a street where tourists are roaming about is not a choice of planning. Gerry would have indeed done something more like 3 or 4 am; I have been in PDL and at that hour, NO ONE is out and about, so it is far easier to hide in the shadows with a bag and spirit the child away

There are many other reasons why this is not so and one of the biggest the cadaver hit behind the sofa. No one hides a body behind a sofa; this is where Maddie likely fell early in the evening, likely earlier in the timeline than when the McCanns state they left. Another reason it doesn't make sense that there Maddie died days earlier is there is no attempt to stage a kidnapping; it is easier to disturb some dirt under the window, add a few pry marks to the frame, open it, and disturb something in the room, but nothing was done because, in a panic, they failed to attend to those details. I could go on and on with why she died that night but I just want to say again, as a profiler who has worked many cases, I see no evidence to support her being dead days earlier and much evidence to support she died on May 3.

Martin said...

Pat, if you read my post again you'll see that I never suggested anyone hid Madeleine behind the sofa. A wardrobe (closet in US parlance) is not a sofa. The cadaverine and/or blood found by the sniffer dogs behind the sofa suggest that she fell there and died of head injuries. WHEN that happened is the only issue we disagree on, as far as I can see.

I think it most unlikely that Gerry and Kate could have briefed the Tapas 9, obtained their cooperation and staged the entire "abduction" in the space of an hour or so, and in the face of their shock at finding Madeleine dead. Instead the behaviour of everyone that evening, and subsequently, suggests that they had known for some time that Madeleine was dead. And what you also haven't addressed at all is the presence of cadaverine in the wardrobe/closet in the parents' bedroom. If Madeleine's body was removed so quickly, while the twins were still asleep, there would have been no need to hide her in there or anywhere else in the apartment.

An "abduction" from a closed apartment is an extremely complicated thing to fake, and the details you mention are some of the many that the McCanns clearly overlooked. I think they overlooked them because they were forced by the Smith sighting to change their plans fast. Yes, they panicked, but not because Madeleine had only just died that evening. Dr Martin Roberts on McCannFiles.com analyses the time of Madeleine's "disappearance" in great detail and the facts seem to indicate that her presence was faked for at least two days.

Lastly, yes, Gerry might have been lucky enough not to be spotted disposing of the body at 4 a.m. But if he had been, he would have provoked enormous suspicion. Anyone seeing him would have remembered seeing him, and would probably have gone to the police soon after M's disappearance was announced. That is why I think he chose to go earlier. As I said in my last post, the Smiths thought nothing of the incident at the time, even though they had seen Gerry and the (unknown to them) dead Madeleine at close quarters. What if they, or even one of them, or anyone else, had run into him at 4 a.m.? Adults are often out that late at a holiday resort (and even in my home town at weekends). But it's VERY odd to be carrying a small child - or a large heavy bag - around at that time of night. That is why I think they dismissed that option in the end.

Not that it really matters unless you've written a book about it, which I haven't. Congratulations on yours, and on this blog in general.

Pat Brown said...

Thank you, Martin. In the long run, theories are only theories until enough evidence can prove them to be truth in court (and that is in theory). I will stick to mine: I still believe the totality of the evidence points to the incident occurring on May 3rd; however, if you have read my book and my blogs and still believe in an alternate theory, then that is your right and vice versa. When I work with police, I present my analysis of the case and I hope they proceed in that direction, but, I also believe if someone has another theory, they have the right to look down that avenue as well. Of course, not every avenue will be given the same weight, not every "lead" followed up; that is where the investigation team must make decisions on how time and money will be spent.

It IS interesting, though, that Scotland Yard has spent a fortune and still hasn't managed to look at the most likely theory - no abduction - and the direction in which the evidence most clearly points - the McCanns. This is why I keep saying the Scotland Yard review is a fraud.

Martin said...

"... the Scotland Yard review is a fraud". How right you are, Pat! It's a deliberate smokescreen whose purpose is to leave the case unsolved while appearing to have done everything possible to solve it. The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it, and that is the rationale here.
My only interest in this case stemmed from the blindingly obvious fact that the McCanns lied from the start. The general public is lied to far too often. It's the simple truth that interests me, and no more than that. Here's hoping it will come out one day.

Sarah Mitchell said...

I agree 100%

Anonymous said...

I feel in my heart that Madeleine was dead before the 3rd ,,,,and that Kate had far too much to drink and killed her daughter in a fit of rage ,,,,Kate did say that Madeleine was a very difficult child and that she felt it very difficult to cope with Madeleine's behaviour and tantrums ,,,,And so panic set in and Gerry had to dispose of Madeleine's body to save Kate from going to prison, and their jobs and reputations were on the line ,,,,,,,I also believe that Madeleine was taken out to sea and placed inside Gerry,s hold-all bag ( which went missing)which was weighted down and she was tossed into the sea ,,,,, and previously Madeleine's body. Had been stored in the fridge before disposal ,,,,and we all know what happened with the fridge ,,,,,,

Daff said...

Think people are missing some important info that has been hushed up by media news... they only tell us what they want us to hear! Gerry had Tony Blair, David Cameron, Gorden Brown on speed dial on his mobile all being in the Masons.... money making racket if you ask me as funds now reached 10m

Anonymous said...

No careing parens would dream of leaving their most precious children alone,especially if they had been asking why dident u come when l cried? Why won't k.m. answer those questions? . Surely u would do anything to help find your precious child, if they had been abducted! At the very least they should be charged with child neglect, l am becoming more convinced of their involvement in the death of madeline, too many inconsistencies in their stories. Big goverment protection.

trustmeigetit said...

Reading about this case again after reading about Freemasons.

Lots of similar questions have been asked that I wanted to share my thoughts on.

Namely why I'm 100% convinced the cause of death was overdose or at least covered up because the presence of drugs in her system and why the rest of the tapas group would go along..


I think first of all they increased the dose for Madeline that night BECAUSE she woke the night before (crying heard by neighbor) and it resulted in her death. Which I think also involved a fall based on the blood. But still drugs in her system regardless of causes an issue.

Not sure on timing. Most of what I have read says it would have taken about 90
Mins for the death scent to be left behind. But it is possible if she died while they were still there before they left and didn't notice till a later check for that to have happened. Plenty of time for that scent to be left.



So for those that don't think the drugging happened. Then explain why the twins never woke or moved during the investigation. They did not move..cops stated this as does mom herself in her book...And why did mommy leave the twins if she thought Madeline had been kidnapped from that very room. She would have stayed and screamed for help or woke them to bring with them.

And along with Mom mentioning the twins not moving in her book, she also said she wondered if the kids had been drugged yet never had them taken to a hospital immediately for testing. I mean if a stranger did this, you don't know what they were given and could also be at risk. A parent would have the kids checked.

Then mom later (end of September) has the twins tested to now prove they were NOT drugged? She's not only contradicting her own comments in her book, but I work in HR and we drug test where I work. This test was done too late to be valid. This happened early May and late September is well past the 90 day period for a valid test. Not to mention the fact that mom herself hired the lab for the test. Hardly impartial considering her medical background and connections to local labs and this was done on her terms. Not timely and as part of the investigation.

So now why do I think the rest went along with their story? Simple. I really think all the parents were drugging the kids to sleep since all were leaving the kids alone.

So they could not turn the parents in.

This would likely result in testing of drugs for all children and just like that, everyone goes down with the McCanns. If I'm right, that means that while only one child died, the all are just as guilty. It could have been any of this kids. They all are involved unless they too were ready to face charges of drugging their kids.

Pat Brown said...

Trustmeigetit,

This is pretty much my take on this as well. One of the major sources of evidence in this case comes from the behaviors of the parents, specifically Kate. Since she herself writes about what she did and thought - as did Gerry on his blog - and we have their statements from all their TV appearances along with their police statements (I trust nothing written in the press as I myself know I am rarely quoted properly), we have very good information and this is evidence that a profile can be based on. There is no huge conspiratoral crime to do something to Maddie; it is a typical parent failure and coverup. The only real mystery is why they got so much help later but I believe it may be a domino effect of individuals with self-serving motives - political and economic - that turne into a tsunami of support.