Wednesday, August 13, 2014

My Review of Richard D. Hall's "Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann"

There is a lot of excitement over Hall's new documentary about Madeleine McCann and deservedly so as this is the first film made about the case which actually explores the incredibly peculiar issues surrounding the case that make it such a mystery, issues which haven't anything to do with the actual facts of Maddie's disappearance. Finally, someone has cobbled together a very dramatic (and I mean this in an intellectual sense, not a human interest sense) reconstruction of the events that make this case astounding - the lies, the inconsistencies, the political connections and the overwhelming political support of the McCanns - point after point is driven home with good visuals and explanations that should leave any viewer with a clear understanding that the McCanns and their friends are hardly innocent bystanders and that they had unprecedented help from high places that is absolutely astounding. I thank Mr. Hall for getting this documentary out to the public and commend him for his fine work. Certainly, this documentary, Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann contains a lot more truth and depth than we can expect from Anthony Summer's book, Looking for Madeleine, coming out in the UK in September.

Having viewed this excellent documentary, where do I stand on its content and the effect it will have on the case?

Sadly, I think this work will be watched in its entirety mostly by those who already question the McCanns. Summer's "approved" book will get the big publicity and mass media will ignore the hell out of Hall's documentary. Yes, folks will do their best to pump it on Facebook and Twitter but compared to large publicity machines of MSM, it will be a drop in the bucket. Having said that, I am still glad this documentary is out in the public domain, but I believe, like my book and others' sites and videos attempting to bring the facts to light, it will be for posterity, not for present day influence.

As to content of the documentary, I really liked the way Mr. Hall brought up inconsistency after inconsistency, lie after lie, bizarre political action after bizarre political action. I think this methodology was strong in truly pointing out why Gonçalo Amaral doubted the McCanns and why there is something not right in the UK and Portugal that allowed the McCanns to abscond and get away with their criminal behavior. I especially loved the third segment which focused on the private detective agencies...a true eye opener.

I would have rather Mr. Hall left out some of the second part content about Payne and the Gaspars because this was not so much about the McCanns' inconsistencies but a confused muddle of Payne's statements and the Gaspar statement which. while interesting. is not proven factual. I would have liked to seen more about the McCanns ignoring the Smith sighting and something about the Scotland Yard involvement. However, the segment on the dogs was particularly strong and anyone watching that should certainly wonder about the McCanns involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

Having watched the documentary, I dd come away with some thoughts unchanged and some modified. Here is where I stand:

1) I still strongly assert the McCanns should be the top suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.
2) I absolutely believe Maddie disappeared on May 3rd and not anytime earlier; the crime scene and what appears to be a cover-up hardly represents any kind of intelligent staging one might expect if there were more time to consider a better plan. I find the last photo to be completely irrelevant and since the crime scene indicates an accident that occurred in the flat, I see no grand conspiracy of pedophilia or involvement by any other adult in Maddie's demise.
3) I believe David Payne may have lied about seeing Maddie (something the McCanns might simply have felt necessary to prove an alibi, that Maddie were alive when they left for the restaurant and "the abduction" occurred whilst they were with others) or why he was at the flat but I do not find any reason to suspect his involvement in the crime.
4) I do not find the Gaspar statement credible at all.
5) I find it most likely Gerry moved the body and moved the body alone and he is the only person who truly knows where Maddie is buried.
6) I believe the Smiths to have seen Gerry, mostly because the McCanns refused for so long to acknowledge that Smithman could be the abductor.
7) I find it likely that Gerry does have some strong political connections that set off the initial support of him and Kate, but I believe the support later on is a matter of politics that has nothing to do with the McCanns. Sometimes, both in the media and in politics, tidal waves of specific actions have more to do with money, ratings, careers, and other issues than being actually connected to the original issue. The same may be true for Scotland Yard.
8) I still believe Scotland Yard will close the case down in the fall with an unprosecutable suspect or allude to one and allow the case to dwindle away. I do not believe the McCanns will ever be arrested or prosecuted. The Summer's book and the final Scotland Yard conclusion will wrap things up along with the civil trial and the case will slowly fade from public view.

Again, if I am wrong about the outcome, I will be happy. If I am right, I am still happy that so many people made an effort to find the truth and keep the facts out there; who knows what effect these efforts will have on future investigations and, maybe one day, years from now, the truth will finally come out.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 13, 2014




Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

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


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




31 comments:

Anonymous said...

As I already expressed on Richard Hall's video pages, I agree with you. This is the best documentary ever made about Madeleine's disappearance case.
It's intelligent, it's objective and attempts to expose only the information available. If some information comes out as being irrelevant or not sufficiently funded to be used, as you said, it can only be sorted out by those that have been studying this case for so many years.
However, it's a brilliant work and I recommend it.

Anonymous said...

I largely agree with everything here Pat. However, I'm interested in your comment that you don't find the Gaspar statement credible. Do you mean that you doubt the veracity of the statement or that you don't believe it's relevant to the investigation? The behaviour that the Gaspars allege is so disgusting that, if you accept their statement is true, I feel that it gives an indicator that paedophilia may have played some part in the cover-up of Madeleine's disappearance.

I also can't reconcile your statement that you believe David Payne may have lied but can't find a reason to suspect his involvement in the crime. Why would he lie and provide an alibi for Kate/Gerry? My personal belief that he is deeply involved.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Pat, I agree that the Gaspar statement could mean absolutely nothing, it's incredibly flimsy as it is, and I also love your cynicism regarding the Scotland Yard cover up. Which is why I'm a little surprised you're unwilling (like me) to put a conspiracy hat on, especially since we know MI5 are involved (e.g confronting Martin Grimes at Faro airport). Then again, maybe you have more direct experience of seeing cover-ups going on behind the scene and that informs your viewpoint. As for the video: there are hundreds of 9/11 videos on the internet with millions of viewers. What influence has it had on the MSM? Nada! Having said that, one thing Rich D Hall's video will do is bring a circle of 9/11 truthers to the Mccann case and I think that will have some benefits.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat for this review. I'm anon who asked you to watch it on previous blog's comments, then someone else provided the link. I agree with everything you say. My pessimism about the burial of the whole business is not quite as strong as yours however. Nevertheless, if that is allowed to happen, the McCanns carry their own sentence till their lives end. Very sadly, so do their son and daughter.

Anonymous said...

You're wrong Pat about the inclusion of Gaspar and Payne. This is a 360 degree documentary which if it's going to be consigned to posterity needs to include this information. Gaspar and Payne may turn out to be insignificant but you can't possibly know that.

Anonymous said...

Excellent Pat, been looking forward to your comments on this.

guerra said...

Yes, the majority of people who will watch these videos are those that already suspect the McCann's involvement, just have a look at the youtube views counter.

I don't believe the parents intended to kill their daughter but if it was a simple accident they wouldn't have gone to all this trouble to hide or destroy the body; whatever they did it directly resulted in the death of their daughter and would have been confirmed by an autopsy.

I don't know the relevance of the Gaspar statements but I suspect that it is one of the reasons the McCanns want the book banned. Mr. and Mrs. McCann have never broached the subject.

I think there is more to this than Mr. McCann having political connections. And I don't believe Mr. Cameron acted on his own initiative when he decided to allot a blank cheque to the Scotland Yard investigation.

As it stands there is not enough evidence that would make a prosecutor confident that he could win the case, so ask yourselves what needs to happen for the McCanns to be prosecuted? Assuming that you actually believe that a proper investigation is taking place, what evidence has to come to light? Do you see the difficulties in all this? The likelihood of the McCanns ever being prosecuted is next to nil.

Just before the libel trial gets going Scotland Yard will once again fill the headlines with more preposterous stories and before the year is out Scotland Yard will have given their seal of approval on the McCann's assertion that the child was abducted; that's what they were brought in to do.

guerra said...

Just like to make a correction, it is not a libel trial, it is what they call a damages trial. It's quite confusing, apparently what is being determined is the legality of Mr. Amaral's book and its effect on the McCann's lives.

Anonymous said...

Personally I like the way that Richard D Hall has given the facts but didn't fall into the trap of insinuating that he knows more than he does nor has he tried to inflate himself. He's saying "here's the facts; make your own mind up." And it's that which may help guide others to search for the truth.

I agree with you that his "...work will be watched in its entirety mostly by those who already question the McCanns". But it's because his work is clearly based on facts that will help those who ARE already aware to pass onto family/friends/acquaintances who may be sitting on the fence and who, in turn, will pass onto others. I think his documentary is exactly the catalyst we've been waiting for. The tide has been changing over the years, but Richard D Hall's documentary will, I believe, change that swelling tide into a tsunami.

The McCann's thought Mr Amaral was a thorn in their side... I think Richard D Hall's DVD may be a tad larger than a thorn and may even help Mr Amaral in the long run.

Anonymous said...

Apologies, I meant to sign off on the above 'Anon' comment ... Elizabeth x

Pat Brown said...

I want to address why I believe the Gaspar statement should remain in the investigative notes as something to follow up on but not to be given undue credibility to. I also believe since it is the statement of only one person, it is not right to spread this about as a fact when this could be considered libelous.

First of all, only one person claims she experienced what she claimed she did.

Secondly, she was not exactly sure what or who was being referenced.

Thirdly, she claims that was was alluded to shocked her but not enough to report what she saw to authorities (she IS a doctor and is required to report what she believes to be child abuse, sexual or physical).

Fourth, she did not immediately end the relationship with the Paynes or the McCanns.

Fifth, she is recalling something from a while back and this could easily be distorted by time.

Even IF Dr. Gaspar saw something as she claims, it could have been simply an explanation of how a baby nurses and plays with the mother's other nipple at the same time (many nursing babies do this).

So, in fact, we have no idea if Dr. Gaspar saw anything questionable which is why I don't consider the claim to have much validity unless it is confirmed in some other manner.

Anonymous said...

Pat there were 2 Gaspar statements. One from Dr Katherine Gaspar - the other from her husband (also a Doctor) Dr Savio Gaspar. Dr Katherine Gaspar was the principle statement and mostly corroborated by her husband.

You know, it takes some courage to make statements against friends - much more if those friends are fellow doctors. They must have thought long and hard before coming forward. Doctors tend to have a sort of omerta code and draw ranks.

I believe the Gaspars are of above average intelligence, and as such are credible witnesses.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 6:59

The husband Gaspar makes a confusing statement and says this near the end:

"I only remember that Katherina saw the gesture at the time, I had forgotten the episode, it was never the subject of conversation.

At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine."

In other words, he doesn't much back his wife's statement which is why I do not find it very reliable.

AnneGuedes said...

I rather hated the Gaspar/DP part in RH's film.
Mrs Gaspar's mental health being unknown, it would be reasonable to abstain spreading myths on DP.
Then @ Thomas Baden-Riess, it wasn't Martin Grime who supposedly (hearsay) would have a chat with MI5, but Mark Harrison.
I emailed RH to suggest to correct. As it likely doesn't suit his thesis, he didn't reply.
Serious and preposterous mistake too concerning Martin Smith who said clearly that he didn't know Robert Murat, but, had seen him in bars and knew he wasn't Smithman.

But I admit that RH, in part 1, listed accurately copied and pasted right observations made on forums about the TP9 statements.

Anonymous said...

Oh don't worry the mccanns life is ruined either way, no summers book can undo their lies :)

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk

Anonymous said...

mr gaspar couldn't back his wife's statement on what she heard because he was not near them to hear but he backed her up on obscene gestures, I too don't believe Gerry and Payne were talking sexually about Maddie, she was TWO at the time, they would both have to be monsters of the highest order

Anonymous said...

You write that you believe Scotland Yard will find a 'stooge' or 'allow the case to dwindle away.' After 6 million of taxpayers' money has been thrown at it? There has to be some accountability surely? How you can believe that it's not some sort of conspiracy amazes me. Why doesn't Andy Redwood ask the parents some real questions? Why doesn't he address the lies and contradictions? If this 'investigation' is the best
that Scotland Yard can do , what's the point of it? Let's save ourselves some money and get rid!

AnneGuedes said...

Anonymous 12:26, the answer is simple and no breaking news : SY was asked to review an abduction. You would hardly imagine both parents abducting their own child, dead or alive. The TP7 gave an alibi to each other, there were perhaps discrepancies in their statements but they had no opportunity, no time, no car, and moreover no motive.
Of course if SY had been required to find out what happened to Madeleine MC, the situation would be different.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that a part 5 to Richard's documentary is in the pipeline. It will hopefully focus on Murat and Stephen Birch's claim that there is a body under his drive.

Pat Brown said...

Madeleine is not buried under Murat's drive.

Anonymous said...

1st of longer text.

Hi Pat. Thanks for your review.

Re. the first two parts of Richard Hall's documentary you linked to above, and the inconsistencies in police statements of the parents and Tapas 7:

I could say that I found there was, potentially, an explanation for the majority of the inconsistencies Hall presented in his film. And, more than that, some were so obvious, Hall seemed just to be wasting his time completely. A good police force would consider these parts of Hall's theories, but would only take less than a minute to catalogue these parts as very, very easily explainable. Therefore, if there are grounds to suspect the people Hall may suspect in his film, some of what he states in the inconsistencies are, potentially, so easily explained that it would hurt his theories to waste his time with those parts.

Setting aside those parts he mentioned, often it is not really difficult to explain other inconsistencies. (While, I don't want to say Hall's enquiring process is not a positive thing in itself.)

Just for one example, Hall gave a lot of time over to the early evening of May 3rd and particularly David Payne. It is said Gerry was playing tennis, Payne returned from the beach to the tennis court to where he was, and was asked to or went anyway to check on Kate and her children. One element of a longer sequence: Payne says he spent 3-5 minutes at the appartment. Kate's account says he was at the appartment, but, contrary to Payne's statement, Kate says he only stopped for no more than about 30 seconds and only at the balcony (that he did not enter the appartment itself).

This may be explainable in that Kate was in the shower herself. Payne says he saw and was acknowledged by the children who were in their pyjamas. They had already been bathed.

It is entirely possible that Payne called through the glass doors, seeing the children, came in and said hi, realised Kate was in the shower (door likely to be slightly open with the children by themselves in the main room). Payne asked the children how they were, and decided he shouldn't be there as Kate was naked in the bathroom. He returned to the balcony, waited. Kate came out soon afterwards, had put on a towel. Payne knocked at the balcony when he saw her. In the 30 seconds Payne saw Kate he thought the towel was a dress (has happened before, including to myself more than once, I thought a woman wearing a towel was wearing a dress).

Kate talked to Payne, he left within half a minute. Payne had been there 3-5 minutes, that was his visit, had briefly talked to the kids, and then to Kate on the balcony after, for 30 seconds. Payne didn't happen to mention the balcony, for he had been inside and outside, but only met Kate when he was just outside, she talking to him from just inside the doors. He didn't think it relevant to say this, he just thought of it within a visit to the appartment and talking to Kate as he or Gerry (or both) had intended.

There are other episodes of presented inconsistency which can have possible explanations.

[Of course this does not mean in itself that true statements have been made. Though unusual, it is entirely possible that people have arranged in advance, conspired to make statements, which can be explained if further questioning as to detail arises. Indeed, this can be a valid, potential method of "winning" faith and accuracy of statements, should the need come to it. Statements are made such that doubts can arise. If questioned on the details, the arranged explanations are given. Although things have not "come to it" in the Madeleine McCann case.]

Anonymous said...

2nd comment of 2 of longer text.


However, one thing I can't explain at all, which Richard Hall doesn't go into much, is David Payne's lack of memory as to the day in which it is claimed Madeleine McCann disappeared, the 3rd of May.

OK, witness statements can contain a good deal of inconsistencies we are told, and there is a percentage of inaccuracies which police work with as "normal". Apparently, the McCanns and their friends' statements with all the inconsistencies are just about inside this percentage of averaged acceptable inconsistency.

David Payne's memory was not very good for witness statements made in Portugal. It was much worse still much later when he was interviewed by Leicestershire Police.

I don't know how this can be. When interviewed by Leicestershire Police, he was saying it was all so long ago, and he didn't remember. It seemed he didn't remember nearly anything.

It's just that I wonder how can this be?

The daughter of some of his best friends' had allegedly been kidnapped on May 3rd 2007. Surely, surely, surely, on the night of May 3rd or the next day or at least within a few days, at the very least once, he would have sat down and tried very hard to remember everything, everything of his time during the day just passed and write down for himself what had happened? And, this being such a momentous day, an awful day as it turned out, he would keep his written recollection of this day, wouldn't he?

I cannot understand how David Payne, on questioning by Leics Police nearly a year later can deflect most questions and the potential for questioning, by saying he could not really remember what had happened.

Was it just any day, the 3rd of May? Surely he would have attempted hard to remember straight afterwards and would have kept an important record of all he remembered?

Surely, if an abduction had taken place, Payne would have gone through everything he could the day after the alarm was raised? Surely, for his best friends and their daughter, he and indeed the whole group would have said to each other - go back through that day, think of everything you did, write it down, if you saw anything or anyone strange when you were doing anything, and know when and where it was. But above all, be sure what you did and where you were. And they would have written their record down for themselves at least.

It was such a most important day, if there was a kidnapping and if Payne knew nothing about it or those involved. Surely Payne would very soon have made for himself a good timeline of everything he knew from the previous day, that most important day. And he would have kept this for interviews, or whatever.

I just can't understand how, when Leics police came to interview him, for this most important day he finds himself in a position saying, "Oh, I can't really remember much about that particular day." What on earth? How? How on earth?

Was he suffering from head injury in early May 2007? Or does this hospital doctor suffer often from neurological symptoms with distinct memory problems? Being a hospital doctor requires a keen, cataloging, accurate memory, in both shorter and longer terms. Or (well, actually also - this is also required) at least the awareness of the utmost importance of the ability to know when something is important enough to be, simply, recorded for access later.

Wasn't the 3rd of May 2007 so important, honestly, for David Payne? Wouldn't he have been aware of that late on 3rd May / or certainly on 4th / 5th May? How can this hospital doctor have got himself into a position where he is telling the police less than a year later that he can remember little about this most important day?

Anonymous said...

Last comment of longer text, 3 of 3.

In the end it is this which has me disagree with you from what Richard Hall presented in his film, on the point of Payne. Although I was aware of it already, I think since the film of David Payne with more suspicion.

Not evidence in itself, perhaps. And I am more aware of that nearly each detail of statement inconsistency has the potential of being explained reasonably without much difficulty. But not David Payne's memory, or perhaps attitude to memory.

It is one of those things I find with this case which others have found which bites at them and isn't explicable in the end, it seems. This is mine. I haven't had many of these before, despite many inconsistencies, because I think most of those have the potential for reasonable explanation.

David Payne's memory loss at such an important day isn't so explicable at all to me. It is interesting I track away from your thoughts just when you think that Payne is not really suspicious. Remember these were all doctors. The ums and errs etcetera, may well be usually describing things which can be explained, potentially, in the end. But the lack of memory, the vagueness at many times - would that be really attributable to doctors, ordinarily? (Or so many of them, in the same place and time.)

You have to contrast vagueness and memory loss with evasiveness, also. It can be accepted that there are reasons why these people would be evasive and not answer questions. Perhaps Kate especially was too disturbed. Perhaps she and all of the group were afraid of being implicated, where they were not involved. But, when they do answer questions, there is no reason at all to be so vague or for them not to present good or very good memories of such an important day. If they are answering questions, deciding not to evade being questioned, being vague with facts or lax with memories could only go against them, and I think could only be the fingerprint of someones with something to hide.

I want to end, though, by saying, though I find members of the parents and friends' group suspicious, I do believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted. I just find it hard to conclude that the parents and friends' group are being fully true. Are they hiding something?

Anonymous said...

I wrote the last few, longer comments. I said that many inconsistencies may have explanations - most really are not too hard to explain rather normally.

I also said that, however, I find David Payne's memory loss very strange.

Though, it's just a thought.

I'd be glad if anyone could suggest possible explanations for it, or indeed further suggest as to its apparent strangeness, if relevant.

Charlotte said...

Some here have said they think she was abducted. I used to, but the cadaver dog changed my mind on that. Apparently that dog is never wrong. Unless there was a corpse other than Madeleine's in that area of the room.
The hotel rivals the Bates Motel in that case.

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlotte.

To me, the cadaver scent is more evidence that the McCanns did not kill their daughter than that they did.

Cadaver scent is so easy to plant to make people infer the child is dead when she is not.

Anyone kidnapping Madeleine McCann was involved in a most professional operation, and it is likely to be far from their first kidnap. They are sex traffickers, probably, perhaps including for wealthy arabs. Also stealing children maybe also to order for wealthy childless families, perhaps Mafia, for example.

To plant cadaver scent only requires a connection with someone who works in a morgue somewhere. It requires a damp towel to make contact with a corpse for an hour or less, then placed where they want the smell to be detected.

This is so easy for a professional style operation involved in child trafficking to carry out.

The cadaver being found in the hire car after the girl disappeared is a giveaway to me that this is what happened.

Would the McCanns carry a weeks old dead body of their daughter in a car hired after they claim she was missing?

That's so stupid. Absolutely not. Of course they would not. They would never be so stupid.

They are highly trained doctors. They know all about cadaver scent and how long it lasts for humans to detect and scent trained dogs. OF COURSE they do. It would be ridiculous to suggest they did not know that, or simply forgot it. Ridiculous, utterly.

Probably they remember the smell carrying home whent hey were medical students, in exercises with corpses. They remember the comments from whom they shared student lodgings with, or them discovering the smell remained days later when their own flat sharing medical students brought it back.

They know it remains unable to be cleaned off for at the very least many months - perhaps years - for animals, and longer for specially trained animals.

Of course they knew this. To suggest these doctors just didn't know or forgot what every medic graduate knows well, what every amateur criminal textbook tells you by chapter 3 is absurd.

They knew that, if their daughter was not found, it was highly likely that scent dogs would be brought in to try to establish if she were killed or not.

They said after the event, the dogs are unreliable. But what else would they say if they didn't kill their daughter? What else would they say if they also knew that she could not have been killed and left there in 15 minutes long enough, with no visible evidence, to leave substantial cadaver? Just what they have said.

Would they allow the corpse scent - AFTER WEEKS - to transfer to the rear of their hire car?

No. I think no-one who has committed a murder is that dumb, especially having been informed exactly by that time that scent dogs are very likely to be brought. But highly trained doctors who know all about cadaver scent are not that dumb, certainly.

It's preposterous that they took a corpse of their 4 year old daughter, nearly a month after killing her, being fairly sure cadaver dogs are to come, and placed it in their newly hired car. Honestly, it's utterly preposterous.

However, that a professional child sex trafficking group simply planted cadaver scent there (maybe even nights before the kidnap), is very probable.

Again, to me the presence of some human cadaver scent only points to a very organised, professional style kidnapping.

Like the phone calls received by Portuguese police within the week after the disappearance of the child, saying "The missing girl is dead". Would the parents or their friends do this if they had killed little Madeleine? No, of course not? Who would, though? It is the hallmark of a gang who are hiding or smuggling the child - their cover to help them be undetected with the kidnapped girl.

Anonymous said...

Why would they want people to send holiday snaps and not do anything with them?
Could it be that they were looking at whoever else could have been in the background, as well as the McCann group?It seems that they could be trying to protect somebody.

Michael McNulty said...

I think had Madeleine disappeared in similar circumstances in Britain some innocent loner would have been fitted up for it; preferably (for the McCanns and the establishment) a man of lower mental ability unable to help much in his own defense. Then his conviction would have been presented by the McCanns as proof of their innocence.

Fortunately for Madeleine, for that loner and us the establishment here was unable to do such a thing in Portugal. And no matter what Scotland Yard say, they cannot close the case.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous I'm sorry but I don't buy your explanation of the abduction. Yes they would have been incredibly stupid to move their daughters body four weeks later, as you say cadaver odour is easy to plant so you suggest the family were watched for undefined period of time after their child was abducted, by the people who took her? Surely someone would have noticed the villa being watched? Could the scent have come from something belonging to Madeleine they had in the car? Possibly something wrapped around her when she died, Kate's clothes? In my opinion there is no smoke without fire, while inconsistencies can be explained there are too many, I recently read a book about the disappearance and if you consider the time frame (supposing the abduction did occur) the abductor had 1minute 27seconds to get in the apartment lift a child and turn her to rest on the other arm, potentially sedate 3 children, open the window and shutter, remove any evidence or trace , and get out of the apartment whilst the family sat nearby including Gerry who was within ear shot of the noisy shutter standing within a good viewing distance of were the supposed abductor walked.
I don't believe they intentionally harmed their daughter but I do not believe they are innocent.

Judd Reed said...

How did the cadaver end up on kates clothes? She even had an explanation!

Judd Reed said...

Explain the cadaver found on kates clothes then!the bs story about dealing with corpses at work is a proven lie! So if the dogs were so unreliable her statement about the corpses surely was a contradiction don't you think!they can't have it both ways!