Friday, April 29, 2016

Why the Botched Burglary Is Such a Good Theory in the Madeleine McCann Case



As the Madeleine McCann case winds down, there is fairly good speculation that Scotland Yard's final determination will be that Madeleine McCann died as a result of a botched burglary. And there has been much disbelief that this kind of crime could have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; after all, what do burglars want with a three -year-old child? Why would they kidnap her instead of just running off since no three-year-old is going to be very good at identifying the burglars? How can this be a burglary if nothing of value (minus the child) was taken? Why was there no evidence of a break-in? Why did the cadaver dogs hit inside the flat if burglars removed Maddie from the apartment while in the act of burglarizing the vacation rental?

Oh, Heaven's to Betsy! Stop being so logical! Devising a theory for closing a case has little to do with  needing to prove it is true with evidence. Like a defense attorney attempting to convince a jury that the evidence the prosecution has presented may not truly explain what happened, closing a case without evidence only requires a good story and a bunch of possible - if rare - scenarios that cause the  people to think "Yeah, I guess that could be true." For once you fool people into reasonable doubt, you open the door to just about any cockamamie scenario you can dream up.

So, here is how I would close the Madeleine McCann case with a bunch of inept burglars and why I would choose this scenario.

First, I want to show that I looked into everything (well, everything to do with abduction). I would question any shady character lurking in the vicinity and look into every rumor that had to do with bad people in the area. Along the way, I would hope to find a character or characters that I could connect well enough to the date, time, and place that they, theoretically, could have committed the crime. After running through many a possibility, the best I could come up with was the botched burglary because these were the only bad guys I could place in the area at the time required. All right. Now, I need to build the scenario around these guys.

Here is what happened:

Three burglars, familiar with the area and the resort, were breaking into flats in the area and stealing a variety of items. These burglars weren't particularly skilled nor did they target especially high priced items; they just grabbed stuff that lay within the flat, hoping to make enough on their booty to split three ways and enjoy their gains. On the evening of May 3, 2007, the three burglars planned to gain access to a number of properties and worked together through cell phones, planning their positions and times to enter the residences. As they had noted a number of visitors to the resort tended to leave their patio doors open, they found it easy to access some flats quickly without having to resort to actually breaking in and drawing attention. They also donned latex medical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints in the flats. They used this method to slip into the McCann flat but, this time, they were startled quickly by a child who wandered into the living room. She was frightened by their presence and started crying loudly. The burglars were concerned that the loud wailing would draw instant attention and they grabbed the child and covered her mouth in order to stop the noise. As has happened in other situations (sometimes by a kidnapper or a babysitter), the adult does not realize that with a child, a large hand covering the child's mouth also results in covering the child's nose and the child can quickly become asphyxiated.

After this occurred with Madeleine McCann, the lookout phoned one of the burglars to warn him that someone was approaching the flat and in desperation they pulled the sofa away from the wall and hid the child's body behind it and then hid themselves. An adult entered the flat, listened for any noise from the children's room, and then left again. At this point, the panicked burglars became afraid that in the handling of the child's body, they may have left DNA on it and so they decided to remove the child's body from the flat. With one standing lookout, the other burglar carried the child off towards the beach to where one of the burglars lived. They hatched a plan to dispose of the child's body, most likely in the ocean since her body wasn't found in any of the digs conducted in Praia da Luz.

Due to the failure of the Portuguese police to follow this line of inquiry early on, there is not enough physical evidence to take these suspects to court. However, one hopes that this information will give the McCanns closure, that they know that what happened to their daughter and that she did not suffer any kind of physical or sexual abuse. As to the community, they can rest assured that there is not a child predator in their midst who is targeting young children of Madeleine's age. Although a crime did occur, the death of Madeleine McCann was accidental and not premeditated.

This is a scenario the McCanns can accept (they are not guilty, the Portuguese police are proven to be inept and Gonçalo Amaral completely wrong as are the trolls who support him, Scotland Yard money was well spent and the investigation solid, AND, since this scenario cannot be absolutely proven, there is still the hope Madeleine was taken by a woman who wanted a child and she is alive and well somewhere and they can still continue the fund and the search for her in toned down and less public manner).

So don't think a botched burglary could be accepted by a gullible public? I wouldn't bet on it. Even I find myself thinking that this  scenario could be true (at least it seems plausible if I do not go back and review the actual evidence of the case). And that is how it works; make up a good story but ignore the evidence.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 29, 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.


25 comments:

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton said...

Wow, when you put it like that, you can see how it could become believable Pat. The 'public' believed the highly unlikely abduction scenario painted by the McCanns and the Tapas, so anything is possible!

I do however take heart in the statement from DCI Redwood, 'Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive'. This was at the time of the digs in Portugal and it doesn't really fit the burglary theory. Scotland Yard were clearly searching the area around 5A for a body. Essentially, the burglars would have had to stick around and bury the poor child while a major search was underway, and in such a way that she has never been found.

I tend to think these stories are coming from Team McCann, they have had a difficult few weeks with the finger once again pointing in their direction following Goncalo's win. Perhaps they attempting to reinforce the abductor message in the public's mind.

I also tend to think that they would be more vocal if they had confidence in Operation Grange going their way. I don't think they would be able to resist the urge to call press conferences and set up morning breakfast sofa interviews. It will interesting to see what happens next week. The anniversary pictures usually say far more than words.

But as I say, the scenario you imagine could well turn out to be real, we have seen so much police corruption with Hillsborough, I doubt many have much faith left. Kind wishes.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT , Yes anything is possible considering only one male was carrying a child by tanner memory, and his phone freinds didnt walk with him to sheild evidence of a dead child to conceal a possible accident? Surely had they been watching previous checks, and the apartment, he would of gone in a diferent direction from tanners view or gerrys? Thats assuming if a cihild spooked him in botched burglary to start with? No swag dropped in the process of this panic to remove a body in darkness, sure defies a accident via a phone in that time wthout returning to clean up any mistakes? Having a laugh , considering the locations the dogs found scent defie the route alleged by tanner? And since they enterd via a open door without making a single noise to alert a neghbour, or one volce of panic in the chaos to get out quickly? Check tanners hearing?

Pat Brown said...

Rosalinda,

The key to getting people to accept a scenario is not to explain all parts of it; it is to avoid all evidence or logic that throw the scenario into question. After all, if you are telling the story, you can tell it the way you like and as long as you control the manner in which the story is distributed, all is good. The idea is to implant a possible - if not probable - scenario into the minds of enough people to have it been accepted well enough not to cause a backfire. Not enough people are going to do thorough studies of the evidence to find out the truth and if the media backs the scenario with positive reporting, the case is just shelved and life goes on.

The reason scenarios not based on evidence work is that people are able envision such a scenario happening and then this makes it possible in their minds. They begin to see this vision as proof as opposed to any real evidence. This is what has even happened with some of the theories about Madeleine that we have seen in recent months....very elaborate theories based more on imagination than any evidence like she was killed on Sunday and a doppelgänger was paraded around and fake photos were made and so on. It is an interesting theory but based on as little evidence as the bungled burglary theory. Both COULD have happened but we can only believe that if we a) imagine evidence exists that does not (that there is proof of burglars in the flat.... that there is proof of a fake Maddie in the creche) and b) ignore the evidence that does exist (McCanns questionable story about locking/not locking up the flat, Tapa 9 inconsitancies, dogs hitting on car, McCanns lack of interest in Smithman .....pool photos is not photoshopped, nannies saw Madeleine and she was signed in at creche, complete mess and confusion on May 3rd indicating what happened was not premeditated) and c) ignoring the ridiculousness of the theory (the burglars would have just rushed out when they encountered a crying child....that it is lots easier if Maddie died on Sunday to simply take a walk down the beach and say a wave got her or some person snatched her than create a fake Maddie to have to have no one question for four days and then plan a really bad abduction scenario).

But, once the scenario is created in the human mind, people start to think, "Well, maybe....maybe this is just one of those freak things that DID happen." And that is how come it works.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT , Continued point, how did they get around the patio shutter, without tanner hearing it drop? Attention to a faulty shutter, was the bedroom window? Gerry never heard anything before tanner saw this man? More holes in that story than a second hand dart board.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 7:45.

Your first sentence explains how come a creative scenario works: "Yes, anything is possible." Therefore, maybe it DID happen, right? Hence, the McCanns could be innocent, Amaral and Brown could be wrong, Portugal could be wrong, Scotland Yard could be right, and doubters could be trolls. Checkmate.

Pat Brown said...

If you don't believe the public will fall for stuff, just go to some of the Maddie boards and Twitter and FB pages and see the outrage people have expressed about this blog. They actually think I BELIEVE this scenario! They have totally miss the point that I am making up a false scenario NOT based on evidence, one that completely IGNORES the evidence, to show just how a case can be closed with whatever scenario the police can come up with and why the public will accept it. I am being called an idiot and a bad profiler because this scenario is so stupid which goes to show people don't really pay attention to what they are reading and often completely miss the point. And yet these same people think the general public is going to pay attention to details and past evidence and, therefore, not believe a phony scenario? I think they have just proven that people often don't really get it.

Anonymous said...

Pat I hear what your saying. I have been following this case for years I know about the dogs, the lies, the SY statements about not leaving the apartment alive. I believe that you are correct that a Good % of the British public would believe this as a scenario if it was placed in front of them. However if SY produced this as a scenario I would believe it even with all that I know about the case. The simple reason for that is that they would need to be out of their minds if they tried to force such a downright lie on the British public. The great brush public have had so many cover ups forced upon them over the years none least of them the recent Hillsborough case. I believe the demonisation of police and other institutions in recent years over these covers ups will have the effect of ensuring that they won't go down this line. Besides anything it's not a British investigation, these scum newspapers who are printing these lies are actually naming the burglars. What happens when SY announce in the biggest missing child ever that these 3 guys killed her. Does another sovereign nation then send its police force out to make up evidence to convict these 3 burglars. If so what about when these 3 guys lawyers take in to the European court because their own courts made up evidence against them just to pacify the British. This is why these institutions are in place to stop this kind of miscarriage of justice. No I sorry I'm not buying that there would be a remote possibility that they would try and sell what you have said if it was only the great gullible British public who get most of their opinions from the sun newspaper maybe but there are too many other people involved to gave this any legs

PeterMac said...

A great many people in Britain believed that the Liverpool supporters involved in the Hillsborough Football stadium disaster were drunk - because the press and the police told them so !

Anonymous said...

I know Peter mac but that was 27 years ago. Your an ex policeman you know more than anyone that the past was a different place as far as police work was concerned. The MSM are still the scumbags they always were. 27 years have changed them that's why the tabloids are dieing out. Do you believe that if Twitter had been about in 1989 that they would have got away with spreading their cruel lies. My point is about the integrity of the police ( I'm from N.I where The police where allowed to cover up and encourage crimes committed by the state against their own people ) has changed not just because these cover ups have been exposed and people have been threatened prosecution but also because we live in a different era. This case really has been the most extraordinary case and call me niaive but I believe regardless of what OG remit said that it was set up to bring the mccanns to justice.

Love your posts on the cmomm

Anonymous said...

This explanation by Operation Grange is never going to work. At long last the British are waking up.

Pat Brown said...

::Sigh::

I cannot say this enough times.

No, the botched burglary story is not logical or based on evidence. But, IT DOES NOT MATTER. People will believe anything that Scotland Yard says because THEY have the platform in the media and people believe authorities for the most part.

For all of you who say folks in the UK are waking up, you are living in a fishbowl. 99% of the country has NEVER read a Madeleine McCann forum or read the PJ files. When you see a bunch of anti-McCann comments underneath a news story that isn't because the average people are getting the point: it is because YOU and others who comment HERE and on Internet forums are always looking for articles on the case and as soon as one pops up, YOU are posting comments. It is the same small group of people that are vocal, not the majority of the country. It is an ILLUSION.

So, when Scotland Yard wants to shut this case down, they can make up some excuse to do so and the country will believe it. Hillsborough finally got some justice because there were 97 victims and 97 families directly affected and that STILL took 30 years. NO ONE has been protesting in the streets about this case; all that has happened is people who speak up against what is happening are labeled trolls and you can bet, that the majority of the British public thinks we ARE trolls for being mean to the McCanns.

I will give you a simple example of how we can have illusions about how strong we are. My haters actually think their nasty tweets about me, their emails and their hate FB pages and sites had some affect on my television career. They crow that I have been proven to be a fraud...blah, blah blah. They entire time they were claiming this, I was still busy doing television work to the tune of 3000 appearances. I was in discussions with the networks for my own television show (I am in talks with two production companies right now). I am in discussion with publishers as well. No one has mentioned any haters and they tell me they love my profiling and work. Now, it IS true that I am not doing regular commentating on television these days; it has not a thing to do with my haters or me losing credibility. The networks simply not paying commentators anymore because of the economy; they want everyone to Skype out of the house; no remuneration, no professional studio, no hair and makeup; I refuse to do it. After 15 years of television I am rather fine with not spending all day long racing around with breaking news; I can do other stuff.

But, the haters will think their slander and lies about me have made a difference. Funny thing is, since I have blocked the couple dozen on Twitter and I don't go to their hate pages, I hardly EVER see anything negative about me. And THAT is the point. Most people are not seeing what WE write either; they only read what is in the media and on TV and all of that is pro-McCann and pro-Scotland Yard. Yes, Gonçalo winning his case has caused a few uncomfortable media moments for the McCanns, but that will all wash over soon; he is a hero in Portugal but not in the UK; there he is still a corrupt cop and a mean guy and a slanderer to the majority of the British public.

Only in our fishbowl is anyone really awake.

Pat Brown said...

Hey, and Peter, will you PLEASE tell people over at the forum that they are completely misunderstanding my blog, that I DON'T believe this scenario and that I am not saying this is the exact scenario that Scotland Yard will use to shut down their investigation, that I was only giving an example of how it is done and why the majority of the public WILL buy whatever is presented because they are NOT well-educated on the case like all the people on the forum? I can't believe how they are taking away from the blog that I actually think this a botched burglary is a good theory and that Scotland Yard is going to give that exact theory as their final statement. ::sigh::

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, Thats very true, i have seen such comments to support what your saying, about unfounded allegations of being some fraud? I know your not from the books you have written, to other articles you cover, beside this story, which is of interest in how you came, to offer your service to the maccans to help find their daughter? Yet attacked by their supporters who forget how kind that offer is, did blow my mind this wasnt mentioned, in attacks in slanderous forms appearing in other publications , that failed to invite you for debate?

Pat Brown said...

Anon 8:18,

Much of what people think and say comes from emotion, not evidence and logic. For example, much vitriol has come my direction from people who used to say I was a great profiler and they loved my profile of the McCann case; why? Because I came out and said that I thought the Scotland Yard investigation was not going to end up with an arrest of the McCanns. I said that I I had worked with police investigations and, from what I know from the inside, the SY investigation was not being run properly and, therefore, was a sham. Because some people did not want to think that the SY investigation wasn't going to end with a McCann arrest, they turned against me and started saying I was a terrible profiler and a fraud and I had no idea what the police were doing. All of this is based on emotion, not the facts of what Scotland Yard is doing or the facts about me.

I still see this emotion clouding people's view. Hence, I have angry responses to this article, people who claim I actually believe the burglars did it and how I am a bad profiler for coming up with such rot. Of course, this blog does not say anything of the sort, but emotions have clouded their eyes and they are not reading what I actually wrote. Some people actually DO understand what I wrote and deep inside, believe I am right, but they are spewing angry words against me because they don't want to believe it.

The whole point is humans are human and this is why the majority of people will indeed buy the story Scotland Yard puts out. After all, there has not been a single major protest so far considering how long their investigation has gone on and how much money they have spent. There has not been a march in the street and there has not even been ONE British journalist who has really spoken out. And if this isn't an indication that there is not going to be a quiet shutting down of the case, I don't know what other proof one needs. Right now there is a flurry of news because of Amaral, but come next week and the next few months, the case will come to a sad close and the McCanns will give a heartfelt speech and it will effectively be over.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Amaral will let it be over after all the money that was raised for him to continue. Surely that would mean letting down his supporters?

Anonymous said...

Pat, Re my earlier comment about the British waking up. Perhaps you're right in what you say, perhaps not, but it is true to say that the Portuguese are now having some say in the British press, which they never have done before.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 3:28,

Gonçalo is not a magician. He has fought hard, kept plowing ahead, and is not staying silent. But he cannot resurrect an investigation that has too much politics attached to it and he can't create enough evidence to go to trial. A circumstantial case will NOT win in a court of law at this point; too much water under the bridge and too many ways a defense attorney could shred the case. Even if I were on a jury right now, I would not convict them...and think how much I understand about this case and how I have profiled it. Unless hard evidence (a body, DNA linking to the McCanns, AND perhaps some confessions) comes to light, this case is dead in the water. We will have to accept that at some point (I accepted this at the start of the Scotland Yard investigation) and work to leave enough questions behind that one day, perhaps, decades from now, the truth will come out.

Martin Roberts said...

Hello Pat

Right now the UK is experiencing a political 'storm in a teacup' over recent comments by Ken Livingstone (ex Mayor of London) regarding Zionism. Oddly it (the furore) represents yet another glaring example of the resistance of emotion to the demands of logic (and being quite deliberately exploited in my opinion). Another hint is your sentence earlier:

"I cannot say this enough times"

'Yes, but...' is the eternal optimist's equivalent of the universal adaptor - it'll take you anywhere but the obvious truth.

The only way a 'line of inquiry' could seriously oppose any kind of abduction proposal would be to invoke the recorded indices of the two specialist sniffer dogs deployed in PdL that summer (2007).

SY have not once referred to that aspect of the original investigation.

Now guess which two members of the Police services at that time have since been effectively 'exiled'? Why, none other than Mark Harrison (who recommended their deployment) and Martin Grime (who conducted the forensic search in which they were used).

Harrison is now a Police Commander in Australia, while Grime is in the USA assisting the FBI. There can be no doubting either man's professionalism therefore. Is it a coincidence that they are both now at some distance from UK shores? I doubt it.

Pat Brown said...

Martin,

What an excellent summation of the reality of the situation.

I do believe that emotion triumphs logic a good portion of the time and one of the tricks of a salesman and advertising is to appeal to emotion rather than logic and for very good reason. Emotion is our wishful thinking and logic is the damper. This is why famillies of a missing person would rather hire a psychic than hire a profiler; a psychic makes them think they have some magic to find their child; a profiler (at least a proper deductive one) will examine the evidence and give one the cold hard truth. When I speak the truth here, try to help people understand the reality concerning the evidence and the investigation, I receive a lot of ad hominem attacks - from people who used to say nice things about me. They are not attacking what I say, but me, which usually means they are tremendously upset with the possibility that I might be right; otherwise, they could simply say, in this case, I find the evidence leads me to a different conclusion. They have strong emotions about this case and want so badly for it to turn out the way they want, if you don't give them hope of the conclusion they want, you quickly become the enemy.

As to the dogs, this is an interesting conundrum; they are both evidence and not evidence. Scotland Yad is underplaying the significance of their findings and many people wishing the McCanns to be convicted of a crime are overplaying the findings. The dog's reactions are not admissible in court because they cannot be preven to be 100% accurate; therefore, they cannot be used to convict the McCanns. On the other side, along with the other evidence, the dog's reactions are indeed very concerning pieces of evidence which Scotland Yard is trying to ignore. However, I do believe that vague "she might have died in the apartment" stuff coming from Scotland Yard might well mean they feel they need to have some possible explanation for the dogs hitting there. It is also interesting, however, there is much concern over the validity of the dog evidence from both sides when it comes to the rental car. I think Scotland Yard realizes that even those who think the McCanns guilty are a little bit unable to find a good reason why the dogs hit on the car. Even Gonçalo, I believe, questions the validity a bit. Why? He is looking at a theory of cremation which would pretty much eliminate the need for putting Maddie's body in the boot of the car sometime later and transporting it somewhere. I find if we theorize she was not cremated (and I do not particularly find that theory likely), and she was moved when Kate started rambling about her body lying out there on a slab of stone, Gerry felt a need to move it before it was found by the dogs, move it to the location where his phone ping, Monte do Jose Mestre which would account for the dogs hitting on the rental car.
.
To be continues below:

Pat Brown said...


I, personally, DO believe in both dog hits. Why? Because of all the OTHER evidence that supports the dogs being right. However, because moving a body at a later date is something harder to believe than a body existing in the apartment, it makes the question of the dogs being right about the rental car a little more iffy. So, for this reason, I think Scotland Yard can dismiss this hit and, if this hit can be dismissed as incorrect, then so can the apartment. So why would Scotland Yard even allow the possibility of the dead child in the apartment? Because still the belief that the dogs could be correct as to THAT hit is stronger, so by allowing the smallest possibility of that happening, Scotland Yard gives some credibility to the dogs being right so that they cannot be accused of totally ignoring them.

Of course, what some people have totally misunderstood about my blog post, is that the story that will be told will be vague enough to not really answer the questions about the evidence; its strengths or weaknesses. By avoiding being specific, they allow people to imagine what happened and come to some level of acceptance. People don't need the truth; they just need an idea of "the truth." People want a conclusion on this case and a botched burglary story or whatever Scotland Yard comes up with will be just fine for the majority.

Martin Roberts said...

Pat Brown @08:45

"People don't need the truth; they just need an idea of "the truth."

Or even 'An account of the Truth' (cf. 'Madeleine', by Kate McCann).

As Jack Nicholson famously put it in 'A Few Good Men':

"You (meaning others) can't handle the truth".

Indeed.

If Israel can ignore admonishment by the United Nations for decades, expanding their occupation of the West Bank, I fancy the government here, current and future, will have absolutely no problem with isolated and sporadic complaints concerning the McCann case.

Public Inquiry...? Don't make me laugh.

Dr David Kelly defies medical science, the London 7/7 bombers leave three craters with a single explosive device, and 'principal witness' Tony Blair can arbitrarily decide he's said enough already thank you.

I fear genuine solution of the McCann case will be left to future historians, equipped with 'well I never did' discoveries. I doubt many of us will still be around to read their books on the subject.

Pat Brown said...

Martin,

You are music to my ears. You are dead on in your analysis of the situation. What many do not understand is that accepting reality is not the same as giving up. Giving up is something one does when you have a chance and don't have the fortitude to push on. Accepting is knowing when to fold your cards because that you have a shitty hand and playing it is a poor choice. Like a gambler, we need to know when to leave the table.

I agree with you that this is a case for the historians. Considering I have researched and written an entire book on Cleopatra, "The Murder of Cleopatra" shows that the truth is worth finding even after 2000 years. I don't mind a nice myth as a fantastical story or allegory, but I am a bit peeved with a myth stands in for history. Interestingly, I have receive much animosity over my analysis of Cleopatra because I am "messing with a good myth." Seriously, even historians don't like tampering with the ridiculous tale that Plutarch left us with.

So, with Madeleine McCann, sometimes justice goes unserved in the time in which the crime occurs. Nothing new in this; happens every day. There are many who are incensed that Madeleien will never receive justice and what is funny about that is Madeleine would be the last person probably to want her parents convinced. If it was truly an accident, which I believe it was even though a result of stupid neglect, the child likely, if you believe in an afterlife, has accepted her parents' failures and wants them to carry on and be good parents to her siblings. I am not, personally, so obsessed with getting Justice for Maddie.

What I AM concerned about is how police investigations can fail because of poor investigative strategy and lack of training, howpolitics interferes with police investigations, and how a pair of guilty people can manipulate and abuse concerned citizens. Mostly, I am upset about how this case has come to represent missing children's cases in spite of the fact, in my opinion, it isn't one and does not represent anywhere near how much attention a normal missing child case gets. I am concerned very much with people seeing the reality of this case, the media, and the police investigation and stop focusing so much on "winning" and emotions.

Martin Roberts said...

Hi Pat

When what counts is a 'helicopter view' most people are content to remain in the comfort of the departure lounge. (Meanwhile real helicopters continue to get a bad press).

I might just add that Jim Gamble has re-surfaced on twitter recently and guess what question he refuses even to entertain? (A: How to explain the dogs). No surprise there then.

Anonymous said...

Pat, you're absolutely right. It is right that pragmatic, expedient politics always prevails. And there is no way that the McCanns will be convicted. Some deluded pundits here in England are perceiving the alleged "exposing" of The Hillsborough cover-up as a pointer that justice will prevail in this case. What they cannot see is if that ever there was an example of politics prevailing then it is the verdict on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster that was passed this week! It is some consolation I suppose that Mr Amaral won his case in Portugal. However, when SY closes its investigation in the near future, what better discrediting of Mr Amaral's book could the McCanns wish for? There is no chance of it being published in the Uk - which was always the McCanns fear. They're not really too concerned about it been published in Europe. You may recall that they only started going after Mr Amaral when he intimated he was going to publish his book in the Uk. It had been published in Europe for nearly two years.

ziziduarte said...

"I find myself thinking that this scenario could be true..."

Me too - even assuming I do not have a iota of the knowledge and expertize that you do. No modesty implied!

The British police "reputation management" theory ommitts an important (plausible) detail. Otherwise, it would not be called "reputation management" but a proper investigation which, obviously, it is not.

After the burglars accidentally asphyxiate the child what do they do? They don't hang around! They get the hell out of there! Does it make any sense to bring the burden of proof along with them? Of course not!

Later, as the cadaverine odour spreads, someone - possibly the father - finds her daughter laying there... he may have tried to resuscitate her to no avail (blood)! This is when the cover-up may have started.

Why not tell what truly happened to the police? Well, think about it...

Too much was at stake in terms of self-image, professional status, their career, having to share it with their children at some stage - the possibility of the social services taking the children away from them... a criminal record (for "abandonment")... too much to ask the self-made McCanns!

In my mind - and if non-verbal communication is anything to go by - Gerry's comes through as the one sufficiently cold and intelligent to see the plan through. Just a theory! No allegations made of course!

Yes, for all the wrong reasons Scotland Yard could have a point. G. Amaral too. "The was an accident" - he concluded.