Monday, February 22, 2016

From Theory to Profile: How Agenda Creates Nonevidence-Based Conclusions

No Proof of Photoshopping



I recently wrote a five part blog concerning Making a Murderer, a multi-episode documentary on the Steven Avery case which recently aired on Netflix and has convinced a good number of people that Steven Avery is not guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach, that he was railroaded by the police and prosecution for political reasons. The filmmakers presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what they believe happened in this case; however, they actually did not use evidence to support their theory, it only seemed that way. They  presented a profile (crime analysis) based on a theory - their theory - not a profile (crime analysis) based on the actual evidence.


I also just finished watching Richard Hall's third installment in his documentary about the Madeleine McCann case called When Madeleine Died?. The filmmaker presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what he believe happened in this case, but, again, what I saw was a profile based on theory,  not on the evidence.

Both films were well made, in different ways. Making a Murderer is very dramatic and emotional, brilliantly shot and edited. When Madeleine Died? is very calmly and methodically presented, far more professional, in my opinion, than the highly Hollywoodized Making a Murderer. I like how Hall made the documentary,  but I am not happy with the content. I disliked everything about the Netflix documentary on Steven Avery because I found it blatantly full of falsehoods and very manipulative.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? are intended to convince the audience that the theory being presented is the only one that makes sense, that it is logical, and that there is evidence to support the theory. In reality, the profiles of these cases require a solid belief in the theory the agenda is promoting;  "evidence" is either misconstrued, ignored, or created. The material presented is intended to seem sensible but to actually agree with the conclusions of the filmmakers one must suspend a good deal of logic altogether.

Let's start with the Steven Avery case. The theory is "Avery is innocent." Now we must find evidence to prove this. We run into problems right away. Avery was the last to have contact with the victim, Teresa Halbach, he was the one who asked the victim to come to his property and photograph a vehicle, she was never heard from again after this contact with Avery, her car was found on his property, her remains were found on his property, her phone was found on his property, his blood and DNA was found in her car, and her car key with Avery's DNA was found in his bedroom; and nephew confessed to committing the crime with him. If one uses evidence to create a theory, the evidence heavily points to Avery. The evidence shows Avery called Halbach, Halbach most likely never left the property, someone moved and hid her car on the property, someone hid her car key in Steven Avery's room, and someone burned up her body and phone right near Avery's house.  According to the witness, Avery raped and murdered Halbach. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the likelihood of Steven Avery committing the crime is quite high.

But, suppose you have a theory that Steven Avery is innocent. So you set out prove he did not do it. This is usually the realm of defense attorneys, to go from theory to profile, but now filmmakers are using this same technique, starting with a theory instead of starting with the evidence (as should always be done by police, profiler, prosecutor....pretty much anyone except a defense attorney who HAS to prove his client not guilty). One must figure out how to take damning evidence and turn it around to point away from whoever it points to. Evidence has to either be explained away or twisted in such a way that the jury - or the viewer - will go away believing this new theory.

The evidence in the Avery case is so overwhelming the only way to explain it away is to claim it was all planted; ALL of it! The remains, the car, the phone, the key, the blood, the DNA...all planted by the police or someone helping the police. Someone (probably not the police) had it out for Avery and when this person somehow found out Teresa Halbach was called by Steven Avery to come photograph a vehicle (or saw her doing so), the person took this opportunity to grab Halbach, kill her, burn up her body either right under Avery's nose or he took her someplace and then brought her remains back onto the property and tossed them there along with her phone. Then this person hid the victim's car on the property and got the police to put Avery's blood in it, wipe Halbach's DNA off the key and spread Avery's DNA on it and then hide the car key in his room. And then the real killer got the police to pressure a slow-witted relative into confessing to a crime he didn't do and implicate Avery as well.

What? Does any of this seem even remotely possible? And who is this person? A number of suspects are alluded to in this documentary but none are actually implicated  because NONE of the evidence actually points toward anyone else but Avery (and Dassey, by confession).

Making a Murderer simply presents a theory based on agenda, not on evidence; the theory generated the profile; the profile wasn't based on the facts of the case.

Likewise, I see this happening with Hall's When Madeleine Died?.

The evidence points to the evening of May 3, 2007. A number of people stated they saw Madeleine up until that Thursday evening, she was placed in the creche daily for babysitting while the parents enjoyed their freedom on holiday, there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family. The cadaver and blood evidence points to an accidental death resulting in the child's body lying behind the living room sofa for a period of time, and there is a chaotic discovery of a missing child or a dead child that ensues late in the evening. In the hours, days, and months following Madeleine going missing, we often see confusion and conflicting statements and many odd behaviors on the part of the McCanns and their friends. It appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then all hell broke loose.

However, due to what appears to be a strong belief that there has been unprecedented support of the McCanns by certain political entities (and there is evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support for the McCanns) and a huge amount of media, money and resources used in this case of a missing child that far surpasses any in probably the entire history of mankind, a theory has been developed that if Madeleine did indeed die in Praia da Luz and not at the hands of an abductor, then the massive support system for the McCanns indicates that she did not die an accidental death on May 3 but that she died at some other time and under far more horrific circumstances (which have only been alluded to...some kind of sexual abuse - pedophilia - involving big government people). It is believed that if Madeleine died by accident or even during a rage by one of her parents, there would not be so much high level support; therefore, there must be something more nefarious concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann.

This theory has led to the conclusion that Madeleine McCann died sometime on Sunday (due to something really horrific) and then an abduction staged some four days later on May 3.

Let's look at the evidence that would support this theory:

Madeleine McCann's body showed signs of sexual abuse. No, her body has never been found, there were no previous reports that Maddie had been sexually assaulted. There is only one statement from a woman who thought, on a previous occasion when she and some friends were dining, that Madeleine's father and a male friend shared a gesture that the woman interpreted as having to do with Madeleine and having a sexual meaning. There is no corroboration of this moment by anyone else nor any proof that what the woman believed happened actually did occur.

The Tapas children showed signs of sexual abuse. No, there is no evidence of this.

There were pornographic photos or videos of the Tapas children. No, there is no evidence of this.

There is proof of sexual assault of children by the McCanns, the other Tapas members, or by any of the people connected to the McCanns and this case. No, there is no evidence of this.

So, there is actually not a shred of evidence that there is any sex abuse ring (by McCann and Company) any more than there is any evidence of a sex slavery ring abducting children out of Praia da Luz and environs.

The theory of some kind of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that the evidence of Madeleine falling and dying behind the sofa be ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ended up behind the sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other than accidental that anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident.

Which leads back to Hall's theory that Madeleine McCann died on Sunday and a team of experts (I guess in cover-up and body disposal) rushed into town to help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction.

Now, one would assume if there is some huge government involvement in the crime (high level perverts) and a high level government cover-up of the crime, they would hardly decide to wait until Thursday to stage an abduction and then stage it so badly that it doesn't even look like an abduction and prep everyone so badly that the Tapas group couldn't even keep their stories straight. Along with that, they would have had to have the  McCanns  parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one child, nannies would have to be coerced into lying, creche paperwork would have to be forged, and they would have to hope no one outside the circle the damage control team controlled would notice Madeleine was missing. Photos would have to be created (Hall does say that experts have concluded that the Last Photo was not photoshopped but oddly alludes to the possibility that the tennis photo WAS photoshopped....couldn't he get the experts to analyze that photo as well?) or would have to be said  to be taken later in the week than was true.

One of the rules of getting away with murder is the less people know about the crime, the better. The fewer Tapas friends who might have helped the McCanns, the better because loose lips do sink ships. The theory of an earlier death date and a bigger organization behind the cover-up requires so many people to know the truth and lie to the police and media that it would be impossible for the truth not to have come out.

Logic has flown out the window with this big governmental involvement and a Sunday homicide of Madeleine McCann. To profile this case as a sex crime involving high level government people requires ignoring the dog evidence, ignoring the behaviors of the Tapas members on May 3rd, ignoring all reports and evidence of Maddie being alive until May 3rd and believing that a skilled "clean-up" crew chose the most amateur plan of action possible, pretending a dead child is alive or parading around a fake Madeleine, and dismally staging  an abduction scene they had days to plan and make believable (couldn't this top level team even open a window, add a few tool marks, make footprint or two, and muff up the room a bit? How about planting some fake hair or phony fingerprints?).

The evidence does not support Hall's theory of When Madeleine died?; his agenda has created a theory and the theory then created a profile and the evidence manipulated or ignored in order to create a belief that this theory has merit.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? do bring up interesting ideas and some bits of evidence that are worth looking at further in relation to proper police procedure, proper interviewing, proper prosecution, and proper handling of the media. However, the totality of the evidence in both cases does not support the theories the filmmakers have presented and it is unfortunate that so many do not realize that this is so. Evidence should make the theory; the theory should not make "the evidence." Analyses and profiles of crimes should be scientifically developed by a professional based on evidence, not created by filmmakers' agendas.

Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet, cheaper documentary production methods, and so many media outlets and so much airtime to fill, the proliferation of agenda based crime shows and documentaries is getting out-of-hand. Investigation Discovery (ID) just aired an incredibly ridiculous documentary claiming that a serial killer and not OJ Simpson may have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I can assure you that NONE of the evidence in that case points to a serial killer but that did not stop ID from putting out a total piece of garbage and now the serial killer theory is making the rounds on the Internet.

The next time you see a documentary purporting to prove a particular theory, make sure the filmmaker actually provides evidence supporting his theory, doesn't just throw around "what-ifs," and make sure there is logic holding the theory together. Pay attention to whether the filmmaker ignores evidence, manipulates evidence, or creates evidence, and above all, ask yourself, "Does this REALLY make sense?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

February 22, 2016




Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'


By Pat Brown

Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
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.








55 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think you are right, there was less people,from the friends that they went with, that new what had happened to Madeleine, than we think And I still think that the coverup is in some way,linked to one of the Royal family. And someone in the McCann family new something about that one Royal. I would love to know what your thoughts on this is.
Are on how She died. The McCann's must have known a lot about, how to go about covering things up and the law,so they could not be charged with her death. As if there was never any everdence even though it all did not make sence to us all, there was no crime that pointed to them. As if just getting rid of all her DA then they was home free. As long as they have enough money to keep us finding out the truth. Then there ok. Just hope that one day I live to find out but I don't think so as I am nearly seventy.
Love reading your Blogs Pat

Pat Brown said...

Hi Anon,

Again, I have no thoughts on any connection to the Royals because there is no evidence pointing that way. There IS evidence of an accident and a coverup that began on May 3. I don' think the McCann knew so much; parents often get away with killing their children (murder of manslaughter) because the detectives often fail to properly investigate the parents at teh beginning (because when confronted with grieving and distraught parents, they hate to suspect them or don't think to suspect them) and then the chance to get evidence and prove the crime dims.

Will we ever know the truth? It certainly won't be in a court of law. Maybe, one day, someone will indeed talk but, like you, I don't know if I will be around for that!


Anonymous said...

Hello,

Where in his film does Richard say there was sexual abuse? Not once have I seen or heard him claiming that.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton said...

Brilliant Pat, you have completely dismantled most of the nonsense that is propping up these ridiculous theories. If the cream of the British special forces put this unbelievable 'abduction' story together, then the UK has far more problems than a few negligent doctors. One can just picture MI5/6, saying 'we'll hide the body behind the sofa and get a doppelganger of the father to move it later'. Not only have these conspiracy theorists cast aside all the existing evidence, they have also abandoned logic, reason and common sense.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 6:11

This is alluded to because a simple accident by a couple of middle class doctors is not going to cause British Special Forces and Media Speciialists and Mark Warner to swoop and help the McCanns get rid of a body, put together a fake week of a live Maddie, create forged documents, pay off false witnesses, etc., etc. It is something BIG that the Tapas folk and others who were in Praia da Luz at the time were involved in ::play scary music:: that led to Maddie's death. It is this huge conspiracy theory that has developed the Sunday death conclusion and a whole bunch of other nonsense that is simply not based on evidence.

Pat Brown said...

::laughs::Yes, Rosalinda, some of the theories are so ludicrous one just wonders how people give them any credence, Yeah, instead of paying some "swarthy, dark haired Gypsy" to carry off a Madeleine lookalike, let's use a guy that looks JUST like Gerry!. And let's make a photo of Gerry and instead of just having him sit by the pool without glasses, let's find a pair of sunglasses with reflections that don't match and hang them from his shirt. Instead of having Maddie "go missing" while sleeping or walking through a crowded market, let's make them look like negligent parents so we think they are scum and could have harmed their daughter themselves. ::sigh:: Sadly, what is on many do not understand (and some of these folks are well-meaning) is that promoting unfounded, outrageous theories that are not based on evidence is playing right into the McCanns' hands...if enough of those that question can be discredited as loonies, then those who question the McCanns innocence by way of reasonable theories and evidence can be grouped in with them (and this is exactly how the McCanns and Summer's and Swan dealt with me in their books.

Ian said...

Pat thanks for that - basically I'm with you on this. I watched RDH's latest videos and think that he has now gone down the rabbit hole in looking at this case. I originally came to his videos through the Mccann link and found them to be interesting insightful and analytic. Unfortunately I also watched some of his other videos and these propound some ideas that can only be described as far out - notably his assertion that no planes hit the towers on 911!

His latest video I believe starts from a proposition - I wont go into that here as I think you understand what that is but the first question I asked after watching it was - 'if you are going to enlist all these people in your plan to create the idea of an abduction then why not use them to create a real abduction?' Why are there so many discrepancies such as the window not open, shutters not open, no break in signs, no clues, no evidence of abduction, no prints, no sightings, no nothing? It is this lack of evidence that have led to so many people myself included, concluding that there WAS no abduction and that somehow the Mccanns were involved.

However as i have posted before there are things that belie this as a simple matter of either accident or abduction and that is the unprecedented media support and govt involvement in the case. On a number of occasions i have tried posting some questions on MSM media forums and it appears that the Mccanns can not be criticised so far as any case anomalies go. You can't make reference to the points such as dogs evidence, lack of DNA, Clarence Mitchell, the 48 questions, the 'dodgy detectives etc.

Only criticism from the 'neglect' angle is accepted. They or their media people appear to be able to control the story. How on earth could they get the Portuguese police to shelve this case? There are certainly questions that need answering here and it is these that Richard Hall is exploiting. I guess until they are, then the speculation will just go on. It is intriguing...

Pat Brown said...

I want to point out that something that screws up a lot of people when they develop theories about crimes; they don't understand crime scenes and how crimes happen. People tend to act in certain ways - criminals have their ways, non-criminals have their ways, psychopaths have their ways. If you work enough crimes, you see how things work. As a profiler, I have a hard time trying to explain to some people that I actually DO know more because I have spent twenty years analyzing crime (and I don't mean I know more in an arrogant way; just that I have experience in seeing things over and over just like an auto mechanic probably knows more about why my car isn't working than I do). Experts aren't always right but they have a good chance of being more knowledgable than a non- expert. So, if an expert gives a good explanation of why something is or isn't, what they say should be taken seriously.

For example, I have been "told" that the guy carrying the child toward the beach couldn't be Gerry because he wouldn't risk being seen carrying his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz. However, this simply is not so. Panicked people will indeed do just that because they are are desperate, scared people trying to deal with a massive problem in a short period of time. Sometimes they get caught precisely because they didn't have time to come up with a better plan; sometimes, they get lucky and the body or evidence disposal actually worked out.

If Smithman is Gerry, it makes total sense that he might make the choice to hurry out of the house with Madeleine with the aim to do something with her body; he knew he couldn't leave it in the house and, like a number of other cases involving children killed by parents, he likely hoped to dispose of her body in a place that would make her disappear forever or buy him time or make it look like some kidnapper dumped her wherever. People in this kind of panicked state are not necessarily thinking things through well which is why what they do might seem crazy or stupid (and actually BE crazy and stupid). Obviously, the McCann apartment was a really poorly staged crime scene which again shows people in a state of panic who didn't think of some of the basic things they should have thought of to make it look real. In fact, they pretty much did nothing outside of claim the window was open and a door more ajar than before.

Some people tell me that Steven Avery would never have murdererd anyone because he was a celebrity at that point in his life, a poster boy for the wrongly accused, and in line for some big money. But, Steven Avery has all the traits of a psychopath and a psychopath may well commit such a crime simply because he was bored or it thrilled him or he thought he was untouchable because of the previous police issue or he could get away with it because he had learned so much about covering up crimes in prison. If one understands violent psychopaths and how and why they commit crime, then Steven Avery killing Teresa Halbach is not a stretch at all.

Pat Brown said...


Another example is those who think Maddie died on Sunday and then it is not unreasonable for the parents to wait four days before staging an abduction. Folks, THAT is not how people who have committed a murder or manslaughter do things. They clean up quickly, very quickly. They do not walk around for four days going through the motions of a normal life, then go out drinking and laughing and pretend to be negligent parents by leaving all their children in the apartments alone and then, at the appointed time, go into a big act of discovering their child missing. Does not happen. For example, suppose a man kills his wife. What he might do is wash his clothes, then get in his car and drive out of town on a "business trip." Then he will call home a half dozen times to make it look like he was trying to contact his wife and she wasn't answering so he got worried. He then calls a neighbor and asks the neighbor to check on his wife and his wife is discovered dead. THAT is a common scenario. You won't find a guy kills his wife and runs around town with a body double and photoshops his dead wife into recent photos and so on. While there are some more imaginative ways some people have handled a murder, certain things just don't happen and certain things do. Knowing how this kind of thing actually works and how people actually think makes it easier to know where there are red flags and where there are not. Kate not being interested in the Smithman sighting was one of the biggest red flags in this whole case because when a mother has a child kidnapped, she will jump at any possible suspect or sighting. For a mother to virtually ignore a very credible sighting (right time, right kind of child, right kind of witnesses) is absolutely huge which tells me two things: the likelihood of Maddie actually having been kidnapped is low because her mother wasn't interested in a possible kidnapper, and 2) the likelihood of the Smithman being Gerry is high because if Kate weren't worried that it was indeed Gerry, she should jump on the opportunity to have possible proof of an abductor (she sure liked Jane's sighting for that reason).

Theories should be based on evidence AND make sense within the realm of how crimes go down and people act. Hall's Sunday death and conspiracy theory is just not something that happens in real life even in the very bizarre world of the McCann.

Pat Brown said...

Ian, many good points,

I also like Hall's work in the first round because he has a good voice and he pointed out some interesting things, but, then it just went around the bend.

As to this being more than an accident because of the unprecedented help and coverage, again, I think the problem with this is ignoring the evidence which points to a death on May 3rd and a bunch of panicked people. There may be OTHER complicating issues along with the accident and this is more likely to be part of the cause for things being confusing and the McCanns getting so much help.

The evidence supports an accidental death. However, that doesn't mean the parents didn't contribute to the accidental death through neglect and possibly overdosing their child, It is also possible Madeleine's body could show signs of physical or sexual abuse that would be detrimental to the McCanns when the body of Madeleine was examined. We don't know if these kind of added issues could have prompted the McCanns' choices that evening; all I can say is the evidence supports an accidental death on May 3 while the parents were not present. The excessive sleepiness of Maddie's siblings and Kate's worries about an abductor having drugged them support the possible of the child being overmedicated. One cannot be sure there was any abuse of Madeleine (other than neglect and drugging) but certainly the possibility could have spurred a desire to coverup the crime (although drugging and leaving your child to die doesn't do much for your careers, parental rights, and freedom so those issues might be enough).

Although the McCanns did use connections to catapult the abduction theory into the press, it is also true that they were "allowed' to become suspects and nasty things wee "allowed" to be said about them in the tabloids while they were arguidos. This fact rather flies in the face of a huge governmental operation from the beginning. I believe the sequence of events is more political in nature, that at a certain point behind-the-scenes- politics played a role that very much favored the McCanns as eventually a new media angle (ah, the poor McCanns) and a heavy hitting legal firm did as well. I believe the support they eventually had built, kind of like a hurricane...it is not just one thing that made the storm but a mass of things that all swirled together. I think the most puzzling aspect is the Scotland Yard faux investigation...this is something I would love to become clear one day. However, as in many crimes that go cold and become complicated, time can actually make things much more confusing. Jack the Ripper, JFK, JonBenet....these crimes having had clear answers; rather, there is more and more information as time goes on - some real, much fabricated - and then you have a mountain full of garbage you can't sift through to find the truth. It is my belief this is exactly what is happening with the Madeleine McCann case and, barring a miracle, I think this case will continue to be dissected into the next century just like there is a new Jack the Ripper suspect every decade or so.

Ian said...

Thanks for the reply Pat. Yes I think the evidence points to an incident or accident in the apartment on that evening - I think that is the reason for the rather clumsy attempt at portraying this as an abduction.

I have always thought that Smithman may have been Gerry especially after he was positively identified by Mr Smith afterwards. That looks too good to ignore.

As I say the only doubt is the media angle and the high level support. This is where it gets interesting. As you say follow the evidence and the evidence does indicate a high degree of support and interest from certain parties after the alarm is raised. Thats not normal. That to me is worth investigating but the nature of this appears as a black hole. No light emerges. The only question is why?

It may be coincidental or it could be because of other reasons. That Madeleines body may have yielded clues as to something else be it medication or abuse I think is probable. Did they go to all this trouble to simply protect their careers or were there deeper motives. They had support, unprecedented support and this could indicate possible clues but the trouble is no ones talking. Until they do I'm afraid I don't think we'll ever know.

Thank you for your analysis of this Pat because I think that while the case is interesting its also something we simply don't know. Your approach is a sound one and helped me to step back because the tendency to go through the looking glass without the structure of an evidenced based framework is all too easy. I think thats where RDH has gone now.

Still interesting that you allude to JTR and JFK because there are similar clues to these in the MM case if the conspiracists are to be believed. History shows the longer these go unexplained the further from the truth we appear to get.
All the best, Ian.

Anonymous said...

Pat good to see you back but I'm raging at you already LOL and I have only read the first paragraph. I'm only half way through watching making a murderer on Netflix and you have sort of ruined the ending. But for the record I did think of you when I watched the first couple of episodes and how you talk about ignoring hugh chunks of evidence because one or two things don't fit. I couldn't possibly see how him being the last person to see her, his blood being in her car and her car being in his yard could be ignored

Pat Brown said...

Ian, I really like what you just wrote. Yes, it is a bit like going through the looking glass, down a rabbit hole, actually imagining layer after layer of possibilities. The problem is, it is a bit like writing fiction. If you allow your imagination freedom, it can conjure up all kinds of scenarios which is great for writing a fiction book but really bad for analyzing crime scenes. And just like a fiction story can come to life as we read it, so can the fiction we create from a theory (as opposed to evidence). For example, the major theory about Cleopatra's death for two decades was suicide by snake. Historian after historian repeated this story as if it were based on some fact. When I analyzed her death I found that, based on the most solid details possible (location, building, time frame, behaviors, etc) there was zero evidence of any cobra don little evidence of suicide. What was being touted as history was no more than a romantic fanciful story based on absolutely no facts at all! The documentary I did on Cleopatra (The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra) demonstrated the facts and analysis fairly well and, since then, the historians have dropped the snake (although not the suicide theory). However, my book, The Murder of Cleopatra, has not been well-received because people like the comfort of the scenarios they have come to love and don't appreciate me having the audacity to ruin them with a thing like evidence! ::laughs:: Well, I see this same thing with Madeleine McCann; people are falling in love with the scenario they have created and they won't let facts stand in the way. And, like you point out, the longer something goes on unexplained, the more fanciful the scenarios become and the further from truth we get.

Pat Brown said...

Anon !:38

Heh...Sorry about that! But, you know, that case is kind of like the OJ case; the ending really isn't going to be different in the documentary than in the court (which is why I was so bored with The People vs OJ).

This is what kind of happens with the evidence thing; if you want to believe in something enough, you will fight every fact. Suppose a friend tells her bestie that her husband is cheating on her. Bestie refuses to believe it.

F: Haven't you noticed your husband steps out of the room all the time with his phone?
B: He is having hearing problem and needs a quieter place to talk.
F: Hasn't he been coming home from the office late every night?
B: He is doing a big project.
F: DIdn't you smell perfume on his clothes that wasn't yours?
B: Well, he works around a lot of older women in the office and it is probably theirs.
F: Wasn't your husband seen twice this month at a cheap motel during work hours?
B: He was helping a friend from work who was staying there.
F: Didn't you find a package of condoms with two missing in his pocket and you don't use condoms with your husband?
B: Yeah, but he could have bought them to make balloon animals for children.
F: Didn't you find your husband in your bed with a naked woman?
B: Only twice, but he just woke up and they were there.

::laughs::Okay sure. And so it goes. Denial, denial, denial. It is one thing to fight to release someone where there really never was evidence to convict, but when there is a ton of evidence, that should kind of tell you something. Even the documentary makers can't claim Avery is innocent because there just is no evidence to support that. The first time he got convicted he was an unlucky son-of-a-bitch but all they actually had on him was one witness idea and the fact he was likely a violent psychopath. This time, however, there was so much evidence he would have to be the most luckless man on the planet to have all bodies and cars and phone and fires and keys and blood and DNA all show up right at his place right after he was the last person to see the victim. Coincidences do happen but to this extent? Unlikely, and that is why the jury convicted him.

Pat Brown said...

That was "witness ID" not idea.

Anonymous said...

Pat thanks for your reply and Ill watch the end of making a murderer anyway. I agree with the points you make all the evidence points to death on the 3rd and a panicked attempt to create an abduction. I also believe Gerry to be Smithman and given the timing of the Smithman sighting was almost the same time as Kate McCann was suppose to have raised the alarm I think this points to Kate haven panicked and raised the alarm earlier than she should have which is why the staged abduction went so badly wrong for them. I think Gerry was just removing the body or just moved the body and Kate got into a state which brought all the TAPAS 9 to the apartment and as a consequence alerted other people and therefore they had to go live so of speak earlier than planned. Certainly I believe that all the Tapas 9 perhaps with the exception of DW knew about it and knew it wasn't an abduction. They all participated in drawing up the stickerbook timeline and I think the state that Kate was in that led her to bringing them to the apartment early would certainly have raised some eyebrows if these people had not been forewarned. This is where I think the evidence points towards something or someone bigger forced these people to participate and remain silent about what went on. The subsequent media coverage which was except for one week in September was totally Pro McCann. I don't think it was what RDH alluded to. I think the Gasper statements on their own would have prompted an investigation and if any evidence was found it would be known by now as it would be a disaster if social services in one of the biggest crime stories of the century tried to cover something like that up. The Gasper statements read like they had been dropped from the elite holiday club and where getting their own back. Imagine yourself on holidays with friends and one of them accidently killed their child. It would take something very big held over me to participate in the farce. In fact I cant think of anything that would

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:48 Remember to keep asking yourself throughout the rest of Making A Murderer, are they proving anything or just stirring stuff up? A good example of what I mean might be something like this: The prosecution says the dead woman was transported in the defendant's car to the dumping site in the woods. The defense comes back with, well, her other boyfriend's car was seen near the dumping area and so maybe he dumped her. The prosecution comes back with, "But, there were two people seen in the car and it was just a two-seater." The defense says she could have been in the trunk."

Okay, so, sounds reasonable, but is this proven or just a possibility? Is it even a possibility. The first thing I want to know as a profiler is would the woman's body even fit in the trunk? (I drove a rental sports convertible once that barely with a trunk that barely fit a briefcase and if you put the top down, you could only press your suit in the space available.

So, the problem is, the jury might think, hmmm....yeah, she could have been in the trunk. But, what they should have thought was, "Did the defense attorney prove she COULD be in the trunk and did the defense attorney prove she WAS in the trunk?" Those are the questions that should be asked.

So the Avery defense says, the police COULD have planted the blood evidence in the car. But, they did NOT prove the blood in the car came from the vial. They did not prove there was evidence that the police actually took blood from the vial. There is no witness to the blood being taken or the blood being planted. Furthermore, there is expert testimony that the blood in the car could not have come from the vial and that the hole in the vial was standard (as well as other reasons for the package being opened and the vial having some blood under the cap). Next, the defense did not prove that the location of the blood in the car proves that it did not happen naturally, that it could not have ended up there when Avery was driving the car or mucking around in it.

So, keep asking yourself, "Is there proof?" and let me know how you feel about this documentary after you finish seeing it.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:48

The reason nothing came of the Gasper statement was because no one could verify Dr. Gaspar's claim, the claim was particularly odd (why would two men make sexual jokes about one of the children in mixed company, in front of their wives?). So, the statement while logged and considered as something to revisit if there some kind of corroborating evidence came in, was considered fairly unreliable and not given great weight.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton said...

Great to see you back Pat, and as insightful as ever :)

I very much appreciate your expertise, it gets things back into perspective. I have picked up much from you over the years, not least that the way these people are, is the way they have always been. That is. this major tragedy has not changed their personalities. On the lying front, this makes the main protagonists pretty accomplished.

I seem to share similar interests to yourself Pat, and spend an inordinate amount of time watching 'true crime' documentaries - I need to know what makes psychopaths tick.

Maybe now is not really the right time, but I am intrigued to know the dynamics of the group. I have, in my own mind, slotted them into their individual alpha/beta etc, roles, as I see them, I believe Gerry to have been the alpha male and Fiona the alpha female. Kate is too needy to be an alpha and she was very unsettled on that holiday. I also think the non doctor of the group 'saw' the abductor, because she had the least to lose. Anyway, dodgy stuff, but hopefully a conversation we can have one day.

I agree wholeheartedly that people who have committed a major crime do crazy things, beginning of course with the major crime, anything after that kind of pales in comparison. I am as near to certain as possible that Gerry was running through the streets that night, and I agree with. As Ian, I think, said above, someone blew the whistle too soon. The Smith family were close enough for Mrs Smith to ask the man if the child he was carrying was asleep. Gerry, I think, with his very distinctive Glasgow accent, kept his mouth shut.

Anyway, I am having a fascinating read of your blog Pat and looking forward to reading your views on the Jonbenet case. I have found so many comparisons to the Madeleine case, even down to the Avenger detective who wrote a book. Kindest regards.

Carmel Burke said...

Hi Pat

Just on the theory of accidental death, my issue with that is why would some or all of the friends go along with a fake crime scene, concealment of a childs body and a massive coverup for the parents? That never made sense to me, i cannot imagine any of them agreeing or helping or wanting to be involved in such a chrime for their friends

Carmel Burke said...

Crime*

Pat Brown said...

Carmel,

I tend to believe not everyone in the group knew, perhaps just Oldfield, O'Brien, and Tanner, Depending on the depth of their relationship, the men could have done the "gotta have my bud's back kind of thing" and Tanner, well, she might have wanted to save her friends. If this was an accident and the others also didn't have any issue leaving their children unattended and maybe dosing them up, they may be birds of a feather and not think the McCanns deserved to go for an accident. They could possibly see themselves in their shoes if they were the ones to have bad luck. The others may have no clue or may have an inking but are just sticking to what they generally know of the evening (and unless they saw Gerry with the body of Madeine, they could think she was kidnapped or wandered off. Just like people will deny their son or daughter could commit a heinous crime, friends may be unable to confront friends covering up a crime. And, it is not totally surprising that no one has cracked (there is a myth that someone will always talk eventually), once the wave goes in a direction, people tend to go with it and not fight. After all, if you don't REALLY know, you can just repeat the basics and not set off the fireworks. And if you DO know, once you have lied, it is to your benefit to keep doing so because changing your story is going to get you into trouble.

Anonymous said...

Nowhere in Richard Hall's DVD does he state that Madeleine was sexually abused. Nowhere. What we do know is that Madeleine disappeared and very probably the abduction story was invented to explain this. Now any investigator is going to ask, WHY ? What was is about her body that would bring problems to the McCann door? That's not conspiracy theory. That's a genuine investigative question.
There has definitely been manipulation of the public's perception. Again, why? That's a genuine question.
Richard Hall hasn't been throwing out mad theories at all. He has been asking some very genuine questions.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 8:48

Now that you have actually written something I can respond to, I will respond.

There is a difference between asking an investigative question (which I also do as a profller) and drawing a conclusion that has no basis in fact and if beyond ludicrous. And by asking questions (without actual answers from evidence), by inferring that specific events have meaning and are connect with the intent of suggesting a particular theory is the same as making a claim that a certain thing may have happened.

For example: Pat Brown posted a photo of herself on Facebook with a glass of wine on the table in front of her.
Pat Brown complained on Facebook that Whole Foods wouldn't sell her wine at 8 AM in the morning.
Pat Brown was seen coming out of the liquor store on a road near her home at 10 in the morning carrying an item in a long
Paper bag.

Now someone reading this is being led to believe that Pat Brown has an alcohol problem (btw, this actually was a bit of slander one of my haters spread on the Internet by cobbling just such info together. While a person writing the above facts does not SAY I have a drinking problem, he does infer that. The problem here is while these statements are actually true, they are in no way evidence that I have a drinking problem. Having a glass of wine with dinner is not evidence of alcoholism. Making a joke about DC liquor laws is not evidence that I have a drinking problem. Buying wine at 8 am does not mean I have a drinking problem; it just might mean I had time to shop at 8 am. Coming out of a liquor store at 10 in the morning with a paper bag does not mean I have a drinking problem because there was not even proof of what was IN that paper bag (a large bottle of Diet Pepsi which I do have a problem with).

This is exactly what Richard Hall is doing with much of his film. He presents a bunch of questions and facts in a specific grouping which is intended to have us draw a probable conclusion. And he does conclude that Madeleine was not alive past Sunday and yet he does not actually provide evidence of this, just inferences that the nannies might be lying, that Kate might be lying, that the photos may not have been taken after Sunday, etc, etc. He does not provide evidence or proof.

Now as to sexual abuse; again Hall infers a very nefarious reason for the death of Madeleine which is why he suggest so many people are lying, so many people are fabricating stories, so many people are connected, so many people are colluding, so many big important people and agencies were there before Thursday doing some unnamed nefarious things to help the McCanns and coverup Maddie's death or disappearance or murder...ooooooooh....and why would this be? Hall is clearly inferring that Maddie was not abducted, she didn't meet an accidental death at a the hands of her parents through neglect and possible over medication....no, what happened to Maddie is SO horrifying and would destroy so many big people, that some British secret agency came in to clean up the mess. And what could that horrifying crime be? There really is no other possible inference except that Madeleine was sexually abused by some big people, that big people are all part of some organized pedophile ring. This is the only plausible theory for why there would be such a level of government involvement in covering up the death of a child while in her parents' custody.

In other words, Richard Hall is actually himself a manipulator of public perception; he is a conspiracy theorist who infers a conspiracy theory rather than providing evidence to support any such conspiracy exists.

Anonymous said...

Well spotted Pat. However there are a few points well caught in this film... I'm sure some may pay atention to a few details!
Alex

Pat Brown said...

Alex,

I can tell you what is so tricky about these kind of documentaries. TMI. Yes, too much information that has no relevance to the crime. The colder a case is, the more theories are developed, the more tips come in, the wider the scope of the investigation; most of this is useless fishing and hoping to get lucky. Much of this "investigation" is not based on leads from the crime scene but possible but improbable scenarios. I have worked on cases where the police tell me they have a hundred boxes of case files and they ask me what I want to see. I tell them to bring me the crime scene photos, the autopsy, the forensics, and the initial police reports. I then do a crime scene analysis. From there, I may ask to see the initial interviews or specific interviews based on where the evidence leads. What I don't waste my time with is tips from nutters and psychics, wild theories, various criminal activities and criminal profilers that are unrelated to the evidence. Of course, sometimes if the budget allows, like Scotland Yard and the McCanns' PIs, you can keep busy (read: make money, go on nice trips, sun in Portugal) investigating everything and anything.

Hall does a lot of looking into stuff that has no connection to the evidence - interesting characters, movements of people, odd behaviors - and then he weaves this information together until it seems like, perhaps, it has meaning in relation to this crime. And, what Hall also does, is ignore the actual evidence that might negate his theories. For example, the convoluted mess of the evening of May 3 and the bizarre behavior and conflicting statements indicate an unplanned event which flies in the face of a Sunday death of Madeleine and high level help to coverup the crime and stage an abduction. Hall ignores this, But he assigns meaning to something like to few photos of Madeleine which indicates to Hall she wasn't alive for long in Praia da Luz. He doesn't consider there might be other reasons for a lack of photos: the McCanns may not be photo takers. The McCanns spent a good portion of their daylight hours away from their kids. They actually took more photos but they were crap so they deleted them. They were negligent parents and didn't care that much about photographing their kids.

So a lot of what Hall includes in the documentary is intended to create questions more than answers; the more questions people have, the more likely there is a conspiracy. If something is open and shut and obvious, there is little room for speculating. But anytime you have a case with limited evidence and answers, you will see everyone and their brother come up with a theory and conspiracy theories often show up (the killer was a big politician, the police did it, the victim was kill because she knew too much about something, etc). The McCann case is the perfect crime for conspiracy. The body of Maddie has never been found, the exact manner of death or motive is not immediately clear, the family got a lot of media attention and politicians got involved, the PJ failed to solve the case and then Scotland Yard came in and has failed to solve the case. Therefore, there must be something HUGE preventing the case from being closed and the truth to come out. Hence, there must be a conspiracy of great magnitude or we would already have answers.

Anonymous said...

There are a few things that don't look good to me: why DNA findinds cannot ever be discussed? Where the money that support McCanns come from? As someone put it right "Show me a family from a council estate who left their child alone to go out eating and drinking who have been lauded with such support and the protection of the state.” And I add protection from police and media? Why tapas9 have so much difficulty to reconstruct early days like sports, meals etc. I also think that although not impossible its difficult to die from a sofá fall? What does really connect guests, some expats and McCanns and friends? And who was their police contact that update them with main issues that should be under police secrecy but were passed to them? Its not conspiracy is something else...
Alex

Pat Brown said...

Alex, sometimes there is corruption and all kinds of stuff going on that is less than above board but often times it is not one BIG thing but a succession of smaller things. And since we can't see behind the scenes at each step, we cannot figure out what is what. Egos, politics, profit, connectionsl...each can have a cause and effect at a point in time. Someone knows someone who can do them a favor and that favor spins into another favor. Then, someone sees a moneymaking opportunity and that spins into fraud. And so on.

There are two things that lead me to believe there was nothing preplanned and the support for the McCanns grew due to connections, media money and madness, and politics. The crime appears to be accidental and the McCanns were trashed in the media for a good long time. I think the McCanns knew enough people and had just enough power (and narcissism) to get the ball rolling in their favor and they had the "luck" to lose their kid while vacationing, having their child be a little blonde girl, and being doctors and fairly attractive (at least Kate is quite lovely, imo). From there, donations and the fund and a great law firm....and, eventually media and political support. I cannot tell you why they have gotten quite the level of support the have, but my strongest suspicion is money and politics.

Anonymous said...

I don't know why you keep saying that Richard D Hall suggests sexual abuse. He DOES NOT.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:26

Okay, then, just what DO you think Mr. Hall is inferring is the motive for the British government and a huge cast of powerful players to help cover up the death of a toddler while on vacation in Portugal?

Anonymous said...

Yes He DOES feb 24! Unless RH cames with a secret medical meeting and drugs experimental theory that went wrong it sounds he has a nasty suspicious about BG motives.

Pat is right when she talks about corruption. Corruption is the tap from all the money is coming from although parts have different motives to spar and to spend.

I Know we will understand better this affair soon. Sooner than we all expected. And will be an inside crack!

Alex

Ian said...

February 24, 2016 at 2:26 PM
Anon

Thats exactly what he's doing.

He is now mixing up the evidence with lots of conjecture and muddying the waters. He is now trying to manipulate people into believing there is a much darker conspiracy without any specific evidence.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if you're aware, but there is a well-known, quite controversial media pundit here in the UK who writes regularly for the Daily Mail who's written an article recently, and been tweeting about this (and not in favor of the McCanns either). It's about time someone stood up to them in such a high-profile way. I have tried to comment on the article with relevant clips and info, but they're not allowed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457221/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-never-know-really-happened-Maddy-parents-accept-share-blame-let-go.html

Also, a good refresher to get up to speed is this youtube vid based on the book the McCanns tried to ban:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZdDTsFC2g

An observation about Kate: her face doesn't ever give anything away, ever.

This couple should've been in court years ago, and convicted. Their friends in high places with the secret handshakes have helped protect them. (When the police first come to the apartment, they both (the McCanns) prostrate themselves in the most bizarre way, probably the freemason's secret coded way to let other freemason's know they are one of them, and they should be protected).

I hope that all makes sense. I've followed this case for a long time, and am amazed at the complete wilfull blindness people seem to have about accepting these 2 as hard-done-by parent. Personally, I think the whole Tapas group were involved in the cover-up.

Martin Roberts said...

Perhaps we should cut Richard Hall some slack. His documentary is not error-free, but nor was Crimewatch. Furthermore he produced it using HIS money, which better entitles him to adopt a theoretical position than DCI Redwood (retd.), who publicly exonerated the McCanns without much ado, then managed a multi-million pound spend, investigating mythical suspects in relation to equally mythical crimes, all with the aid of public funding.

The case for abduction stands or falls according to witness statements being taken at face value and truthful into the bargain. Perhaps Hall's recent production deserves to be taken at face value also, rather than misconstrued up-front as a propaganda vehicle for others or an attempt to subvert genuine inquiry.

As extreme as his inferences may appear to some, one should not overlook the fact that he operates a business; a business which, among other things, appeals to a certain market demographic. If he ‘lays it on thick’ he will attract an audience. If he comes across as ‘all BBC’ he could just as easily lose said audience. Ironically the BBC appear of late to be more of an authority on cover-ups than Richard Hall!

WMD (that's 'When Madeleine Died?', not 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' - although I suppose there might be an analogy in there somewhere) unquestionably exposes a variety of inconsistencies, albeit in pursuit of a particular line of enquiry; inconsistencies that suggest the associated claims cannot all be true.

Which of two candidate photographers took the 'Tennis photo', and on which of two different days?

Why couldn't McCann/Wright/Woolfall first hand police a truly representative picture of Madeleine from Kate McCann's camera? Hadn't the tennis photo or 'last photo' been taken yet, or was there some other reason the PJ couldn’t see them in the first instance? (Neither is archived as part of the process).

Why did it take nanny Cat Baker a year, plus a visit to the McCanns, to recall 'High Tea' (in her rogatory interview), but without specifically identifying Madeleine as having taken tea that Thursday? (Baker was only responsible for three children that afternoon).

One could go on. Suffice to say that more might be gained from unbiased and careful appraisal of these and other matters than by jumping to conclusions and/or making unfounded allegations of impropriety, as some are inclined to do.

The post 9/11 age in which we are living promotes the suspicion of conspiracy, almost as a first resort for many. Among the 'evidence' for such, which I have read cited quite recently, is Gerry McCann's putting in a call to a diplomat friend, Alistair Clarke, very early on in the proceedings.

Paradoxically, it is not this 'phone call of Gerry's which encourages suspicion of political interference, but the lack of it. No-one by the name of Alistair Clarke was on the diplomatic register at the time and Gerry did not even make the call attributed to him (the first person he 'phoned was his wife).

Hence we must ask ourselves why such a story should have been put out at all, and to whose advantage.

The 'quick and dirty' answer might be 'to counter the evidently unseemly haste with which diplomats from across Portugal converged on Praia da Luz.'

But should that have bothered the McCanns? Of course not. It was no concern of theirs who got Buck out of bed, so to speak. So why should the 'blame' have been laid at their door?

The obvious answer to that question is to prevent its being laid at someone else's!

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but the indices of interference are thick on the ground in this case. Speaking entirely hypothetically, Madeleine McCann's wouldn't be the first body to be found inside a holdall she herself had locked from the outside!

Pat Brown said...

Martin,

My concerns about all of this is that, while it is perfectly fine to question and speculate, there must be some attention paid to how this speculation will be received, what good it will do, and what harm it will do. While I was once quite encouraged to see people questioning the abduction theory (as is reasonable they should) and to want to respond to the media spin of the McCanns (as is reasonable), a good many people have gone from focusing their support of Gonçalo Amaral and the reasonable theory of what happened to Madeleine McCann (which I don't agree with every detail of but have supported most of his conclusions and have offered my professional analyses of the evidence which was well received at the time of the publication of my book and earlier blogs) to promoting more and more bizarre idea of what happened to Madeleine and who was involved in her disappearance. There is actually much hostility now towards anyone who believes in the original analyses by Gonçalo and myself (and some others) of an accidental death and coverup by the McCanns and certain friends. There is much hostility toward anyone not supporting every bizarre idea and unsubstantiated claim, anger toward those who do not believe in a massive conspiracy theory.

Oddly, when I first stated I believed OG was a hoax and was simply going to end with either no results or a dead or incarcerated patsy (no trial), that there was no way OG was planning to arrest and try the McCanns, I received a lot of really angry responses. Some went from liking my analysis of the case to claiming I was totally incompetant and a crappy profiler. Now, that OG has eliminated so much manpower and cut down its investigation and seems like it is indeed going to come to a very unsuccessful close, the conspiracy theory thing has ratcheted up. After all, if OG ISN'T going to arrest the McCanns after all, then they must be protecting some really big child sex ring within the government or something equally horrific.

I understand the obsession by many people about this case and their strong desire for answers and that they keep trying to come up with something that explains all of this. I am not a hater of anyone - Richard, Tony, Hideho - I am only concerned that the insistence on creating and disseminating theories that are quite outrageous and not based on evidence - in the long run is very detrimental to this whole matter; instead of people focusing on a miscarriage of justice and resources due to police lack of training and handling of missing child cases, a media manipulation, fraudulent use of charitable donations, powerful attorneys, political interference and a misuse of tax money, what we have is the focus being diverted to conspiracy theories. The end result will be that people look back historically at this case and see either a massive conspiracy that we will never know the truth about or a bunch of nutters that spent years of their lives accusing an innocent couple and a few dozen other people of bizarre crimes that there was never any proof of. Lost in all of this is the ability to rationally look at the case and learn from it.

Essentially, we are losing the baby with the bath water because we are losing the ability to focus on the evidence and keep our heads about us in what is clearly a moment of defeat (all our work did not bring about truth and justice). Sadly, instead of salvaging what we can (an understanding of basic rights and wrongs and what we need to do as a society to improve things), we are down a rabbit hole of fantastical thinking which is going to serve us poorly in the long run.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 1:38

Of course I am aware of Katie Hopkins commentary (I posted about it went it first hit the media) and I am happy to see this. However, her accusations against the McCanns are mostly about their parenting skills and how they don't deserve the money and positive support they are getting and how Kate should not be a representative of missing children. I couldn't agree with her more and I am happy this was even allowed in the media.

BUT, this has nothing to do with stating that there is no evidence to support the abduction theory and that Operation Grange is a political farce. And Katie's statement does not mean that the media is turning and we are suddenly going to see the McCanns arrested; this is wishful thinking. The case can NOT go to court due to lack of evidence and Scotland Yard's insistence that the parents are not involved and their three year long public search for an abductor. The case is dead in the water and Scotland Yard will return home shortly.

The issue here is how we view the case historically. We ought to stay focused on real evidence and what is most likely to have happened and what failures in the systems allowed this case to end up this way. It is about missing children, truth, justice, and the use of resources. Bizarre conspiracy theories do nothing to support a proper critical review of this incident and that is what this post is about.

Martin Roberts said...

Pat Brown 26.2 @2:17

Hello Pat

Thank you for your considered response. I understand your argument and respect your principles. If only others in places of authority held them (or even some in certain cases).

I happened to watch a TV crime documentary late last night, which focused on the importance of forensics in crime investigation, the particular example explored being that of a young lady murdered at night on a deserted beach in Florida.

Interestingly the two 'teams' (prosecution and defence) were able to arrive at diametrically opposed interpretations of exactly the same evidence. I say interestingly, because the prosecution, it appears, turned to an independent forensics team following initial suspicions of foul play on the part of the lady's husband, who accompanied her on the night in question and claimed to have been a gunshot victim of the same aggressor.

The defence attorney(s), from a stance of presumed innocence obviously, did likewise, i.e. call in an 'independent', whose analysis challenged that of prosecution in every particular. Context (theory) preceded in each case.

The jury eventually (after 30 hours!) found in favour of the prosecution (probably on the basis of additional circumstantial evidence and argument attaching thereto).

It just goes to show that where 'hard' (in this case scientific) evidence' is concerned, context still counts very considerably.

Regards

M.R.

Pat Brown said...

Martin,

You have a very polite way of saying the American justice system sucks. What happened in that courtroom was this: a completely untrained group of twelve people who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty was vetted by the both sides and the defense worked hard to make sure no people were on the jury who were trained in any kind of crime or scientific analysis. Then both sides hired an expert who was paid to say what they wanted. The evidence was cloaked in spin - not context - and the jury of poorly educated people - certainly totally uneducated in forensic evidence, behavioral evidence, and crime scene analysis - tries to figure out who is lying (of the attorneys and the experts) and what any of the stuff presented in court actually means. Then, adding emotions, politics, and guess work to the mix, the jury decides on a verdict. As many lawyers say, you might as well flip a coin.

This is one reason a prosecutor doesn't like going to court with either a slam-dunk case or a defendent the jury won't like or care about. He must keep his win record up. The defense attorney either makes his salary or a very large payday. All in all, the civilian jury system is a joke and needs to be replaced with a professional jury system and we need to do something about the adversarial system which is all about winning and has nothing to do with truth and justice and public safety.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat,

Some one has written a very interesting response to your critisism of RDH:s videos on CMoMM . In ten points (or more) each of your claims where you say that RDH ignores evidence, this person shows the opposite...../ Katie

Anonymous said...

Someone? Do you mean Bennett has..

Anonymous said...

No, the name was Philip Gunton. Tony Bennett did write a few comments about it earlier so it wasn't him. This Philip Gunton did not write anything negative about you (you as a person, I mean) so he merely wanted to say that what you said about RDH ignoring evidence, was wrong. Have you read it? Greetings Katie
P.s I like your book about safety for our daughters very much!

Anonymous said...

Gunton is just another one of Bennett socks,

Anonymous said...

Who cares who the writer actually is. The main thing is the content. While nothing bad is said about Pat as a person (on the contrary), the article shows point after point that Richard D Hall has not ignored the things that she claims he has.
Even Martin Roberts raises similar questions (and has done so long before RDH), I love reading his blogs where he often points to details that are little clues in a bigger context.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous 7.3 @4:41

Hello, and thank you for your compliment. There is some atheoretical 'evidence' here now that you might find of interest:

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/

Regards

M.R.

Anonymous said...

There is one fact that stands out like a bull with a sore ass in a china tea shop,,, All the investigations over the past nine years have proven that she was not abducted and something happend in that apartment that alerted the sniffer dogs

Anonymous said...

Dogs don't lie and their noses don't lie either. If a trained cadaver dog 'hit' on a spot it's because there was a dead body in that spot. Apparently a cadaver dog 'hit' behind the sofa as well as the trunk of the rental car driven by the McCann's. There is no evidence that the McCann's ever were abusive or intended to hurt any of their children. There have been allegations made that perhaps they used medication(s) to get Maddy to sleep. Whatever occurred was not because either parent intended Madeline's death. But neither was there an intruder who took this child. The cadaver dog's 2 hits prove that theory to be false. What's tragic is the coverup and the level of conspiracy perpetuated around what is probably just a terrible accidental death of a child.

The_Editrix said...

Thank you for your excellent analysis of the work of Richard D. Hall.

The McCann case went largely over my head because I don't follow the tabloids. However, from the little I knew, I concluded even then that the child died accidenatally (probably from a traquilizer-overdose) and that the parents tried to cover it up. It seemed to me at that time the only commonsensical solution and basically it still does.

I'd like to add a few comments and observations in no particular order and I refer to "Buried By Mainstream Media" as well as to "When Madeleine Died?".

The McCanns
Just who ARE the McCanns? They are nowhere NEAR "establishentment". They are, from their profession (not exactly Harley Street, are they?), from their appearance, their accents and from the rather downmarket place they chose as a holiday resort, lower middleclass, maybe middle middleclass for all I care. The support they got from the political establishment is stunning and RDH did a good job exposing it.
My conclusion? The politicians cynically counted on gathering brownie points from the public. It was, after all, such a highly emotional issue right from the start.

Date of Madeleine's Death
Here, RDH goes totally over the top. What sense would it make to stage a kidnapping several days AFTER the child died? They could, and should, have done that immediately. The conspiracy theories are very thin and he uses the scant facts to fit his own agenda. He has fallen in love with his theory. Watching this film was a useless exercise.
The hints at a paedophile conspiracy are ridiculous. There is not the slightest proof that Madeleine was ever abused.

The Tapas Seven
The support the McCanns got from their friends is amazing. Wouldn't anybody in his right mind NOT support such a scheme, however close the friendship? Madeleine was, imo, not murdered but died accidentally, probably by a drug overdose or she fell from the back of the sofa on which she had climbed while still under the influence of sedatives. Had they been afraid to be exposed as careless parents, something which is very much frowned upon in the UK? But they must have realized they would be exposed anyway - and they were. Did they try, some of them being doctors, to protect the professional reputation and the careers of the McCanns? To have their child accidentally killed by a drug overdose doesn't speak for the skills of the Dres McCann. Had they formed a swinger party and didn't want that to be found out? For me, it remains a miracle.

The_Editrix said...

Next:


The Media
I have an inordinate aversion to conspiracy theories, so I'd just say that the media will publish anything that will boost their circulation, not necessarily what a "higher order" tells them. They published a fair amount of material critical about the McCanns as well.

The Dogs
I am an amateur dog handler myself (gundogs and terriers) and I know the amazing olfactory powers dogs possess. Those were highly and professionally trained dogs. I don't believe for a moment that they erred.


The Car
As far as that is concerned, I have only one question. The car, identified by the dogs to carry cadaver and blood scent, was hired several weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. That doesn't go together with the theory that Madeleine died on the 3rd of May. Or did Gerald McCann carry her body away that night (and might or might not have been seen by witnesses)? If he carried her away he must have had her hidden at a very cleverly chosen spot and that doesn't go together with the McCann's otherwise idiotic behaviour that night. But it seems to be the only explanation.


The Photos
I agree with you, Pat, that it doesn't make sense that RDH had the "last photo" and not the tennis ball photo as well analyzed. The latter seems to be indeed photoshopped.
When it comes to the other photos, I am amazed that the McCanns got away with it. Who in his right mind would save holiday photos in black and white, let alone PDF-format? Besides, from what one could see, they seemed to be all pretty innocent. However, I have no explanation why they did it.
And why would the McCanns delete photos that did not show Madeleine? They wouldn't have been any proof that the little girl died earlier. Would it have been photos of the body? Highly improbable. Of abuse? Give me a break!

Although I liked the four instalments of "Buried by Mainstream Media" I started to become a bit suspicious already when he identified some of those involved in the support of the McCanns as freemasons when it had no meaning whatsoever for the further development. I thought: "Gosh, will he expose a Jewish conspiracy next?" Thankfully, he spared us that. In "When Madeleine died" he went totally over the top, as I said already.

I'm glad I found this blog. I appreciate your analytic skills, calm and common sense. Keep up the good work! And oh yes! Thanks for accepting my facebook friend request today!

Nora The Editrix

Pat Brown said...

Editrix,

I totally agree with you on the media wanting to publish anything that gets them ratings. I have been involved in the media long enough to know that - in spite of a number of good and professional people within the profession, the overall purpose of the media is money, not accuracy or truth. I have become more and more disgusted with the complete falsehoods and sensationalism put out by the media, so much so I have pulled back from a good deal of my involvement with television and newspapers. I have a hard time even turning on the news or reading news stories because it is such garbage.

The media trashed the McCanns in the beginning because doing so got lots of readership. When politics (and lawsuits) turned, they went to portraying their suffering instead and producing tales of the possible abductor. At no point was the media particularly accurate or professional in the telling of the story of Madeleine McCann and I don't think they are going to turn a new page now.

Martin Roberts said...

Hello Pat

"At no point was the media particularly accurate or professional in the telling of the story of Madeleine McCann and I don't think they are going to turn a new page now."

And to think that within living memory a President's resignation was brought about, ultimately, through the persistence of the Washington Post over the little matter of electronic 'eavesdropping'...

How times have changed.

Regards

M.R.

Pat Brown said...

Martin, sadly, not only investigative journalism is dead, but journalism itself is long gone. I think what we have now is a ratings meter based solely on sound bites; the higher the meter rises on a bit of information, the more that bit of information is reported. For example, a recent story making world headlines (and it shouldn't because it is simply an American crime) had the headline "Father murders son because he is gay" and "Homophobia causes father to kill son" and so on ad nauseum over some fifty news outlets. As I read the story from a number of sources, one of them had a bunch of stuff the son had written on the Internet and it was clear he was psychotic as heck. So, I started wondering about the truth of the headline. Turns out, he had returned home to live and the was so problematic the parents had been trying to get a court order to get him removed. The father claims the son stabbed his mother to death and he killed his son in self-defense. Now, the story is changing and the police are supposedly saying that the father DIDN'T kill the son over his sexual preferences but because he was a witness to the murder of the mother by the father. Who knows where the truth lies in this story; I would say this needs to be proven in court....exactly who killed the mother and why the father killed the son. But, regardless, the simply story shouted out throughout the world was that homophobia was the motive for the murder. Woo how! Great headline! Great sound bite! Grabs people's attention and make them read the story or watch the news. Most media outlets just stole the story from the first media outlet (no journalism required at all) and now that the Los Angeles Times dug a little deeper (some journalism), all the outlets are changing their tune. Sadly, no TRUE journalism existed....but, then, hey why report basic facts when you can spin the story into a great ratings win!

Carters said...

Hi there Pat, I have read your summaries for the case and this is what I believe stands out to me and what my gut feelings says:

PART 1:

I believe that David Payne & Gerry McCann were chatting at some point (perhaps during tennis or at another time) about Madeleine's crying on previous nights causing an official hotel noise complaint.

David suggests a sedative medicine (that doctors use b4 sedating patients) that he has there with him on holiday - he suggest that Gerry & Kate give Maddy this drug to to "knock Madeline out"...so she would sleep thru, while they hv their "adult time".

Gerry McCann suggests to David that he pops in to the apartment when Kate is getting the kids ready 4 bed. (5:30pm-6:30pm - ish)

David Payne arrives sometime during that 5:30-6:30pm time...bringing with him the "medicine". Kate gives dose to Maddie...right there, in the lounge. Out of the blue Maddie has a lethal reaction to the drug & dies. Perhaps they try to resuscitate...to no avail.

They start to freak out because:
1) Being doctors they would all, including Gerry who directed David to come to the house with the medicine, be struck off medical register & no longer have jobs
2) Being prosecuted & jailed, both families losing their children

They convince themselves it's an accident....they place body behind sofa...in panic.

David Payne goes back to his apartment - tells his wife while Kate cleans up evidence, wipes down house/patio door - gets the twins to down while she waits for Gerry.

Gerry eventually comes home from tennis courts & they work out plan to wait until dark (sunset on 3rd May 2007 was 8:25pm...complete dark from 8:55pm-ish). Gerry moves body to the closet from behind the sofa. It is a better hiding place.

Body was kept behind sofa for 90 mins (out of sight of any1 first glance)...

Around 9pm-9:30pm (sunset...twilight...perfect darkness) GM removes body to external location. (as per Jane Tanner sighting).

Goes back to dinner & Kate stages her check at 10pm to be when she "finds" Maddy "gone".

Carters said...

PART 2

Here is the reasoning:
1. Maddie's bed not used, she was never put to bed.

2. 5:30pm-6:30pm death allows time for 90min cadaver scents in both locations (initially lounge...sofa...then closet)

3. David Payne's statement (out of all the Tapas 7) having the biggest discrepency of 30 seconds vs 30mins). He was 100% involved.

4. Why the Paynes & Mccanns stuck like glue 2gether that night. Explains why Kate stayed with Fiona on night of 3rd instead of looking for Maddie. Fiona needed to keep Kate close to prevent her from "losing it" & spilling beans. Another terrible simple reasoning for Kate staying behind would be to ask ourselves why did Kate stay? What if Maddie was NOT the first child to be given the drug, what if the twins had already had their dose (had no lethal effect) and then afterwards Maddie was given her lethal does. It would make complete sense that Kate would never leave the twins in case they never woke up. She may have "needed" to desperately be by their side to ensure they woke up.

5. Gerry Mccann would have found out when he got to apartment from tennis...he would hv moved body to closet after hearing & seeing the tragedy. Then come up with the plan of when and what to do with the body.

6. They then 2gether with Paynes "held it 2gether"(acting) while they went down to dinner.While waiting 4 sunset & complete darkness....9pm ish

7. Timing of the sunset is crucial. It fits perfectly & is very important.

SUMMARY
The body may be found oneday. They may be able 2 work out cause of death but still could be blamed on a burglar or anyone who "took her"... but it still will be too difficult to nail the McCanns.

We must prayer our Heavenly Father convicts one of those 4 for a confession. This is our only hope for closing & justice on this side of eternity.
Thank you Pat for bringing together facts in a concise clear manner.

Anonymous said...

Pat, you write: "there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family."

Other than the 5 photos that Hall shows, please could you either provide above mentioned photos of Maddie in PdL, or links to those photos, or references to those published photos?

I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Also, if Maddie died after 6pm and the alert went out appx 3.5-4 hours later, how could cadaver scent in the wardrobe be explained? At what point in the 3.5-4 hours Maddie died, would she have been placed in a wardrobe long enough for cadaver scent to linger?

If Maddie died as the result of an accident, one would think the parents would call the ambulance/police/emergency services, to get help/explain what had happened. Why would they claim abduction and have to remove/hide the body, rather than do the logical as mentioned?

Anonymous said...

Carters, If Maddie was given a sedative, and died as a result of it, rather than going to all the trouble of faking an abduction, why would the parents not just ensure Maddie's finger prints were on the bottle/packaging of the sedatives, and claim she took them herself (as children do, quite often eat/drink medicines/poisons that they shouldn't get their hands on).

That would save a whole lot of trouble with a cover up and claiming an abduction.