Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's

The Smith family sighting or the Jane Tanner sighting; which is more likely to be someone carrying off Maddie than the other? Or, could they be, as the McCanns now encourage us to believe, the same man?

Let's start with a question we commonly hear about possible suspect sightings: when someone is spotted near a crime scene who has nothing to do with the crime but never comes forward and says, "That was me," doesn't that prove that the person spotted is indeed the suspect?

Not necessarily. First of all, the sighting may not even be a fact. Jane Tanner's sighting lacks credibility, so is no surprise that some innocent man carrying a child in his outstretched arms hasn't come forward (although Stephen Carpenter, another British vacationer, admitted to crossing the road fifteen minutes later with his wife and children). On the other hand, the Smith family sighting at approximately 9:50-9:55 is very credible since nine witnesses saw the man and they have no connection to the McCanns. So, that no one came forth to admit being that man may be because he is really the one carrying off Maddie.

Secondly, some people just don't want to admit it was them and then have the unpleasant repercussions of having to deal with the police and the media. Look what happened to Murat.

Next, we have the issue of how the child was carried. Dead or alive, the Smith sighting suspect carried the child up against his body in a more normal carry position. The child's arms were hanging down which would be absolutely the case with a dead child (although it is also possible with a live one). Mr. Smith later saw a video of Gerry carrying one of his remaining children and thought the man his family had seen could well be him. The Jane Tanner sighting has the abductor holding a limp child in his outstretched arms. This is an odd way to carry a child any distance as it is awkward and tiring. Also, if the man abducted the child, he would be far smarter to carry the child up against his shoulder where he could duck his head down alongside the child's head and keep his own face somewhat hidden. Carrying the child at waist level leaves one's face exposed and draws attention to the person due to the odd positioning of the child.

And how does it make sense that the abductor would carry the abducted child that way? If he scooped Maddie up from her bed, her head would naturally end up over his right arm and Jane Tanner wouldn't have seen two little feet. And how does the man get out the door and close it behind him with both hands cradling the child? (Not to mention, closing the door when you are in a hurry - since "the abductor" already have left evidence of a break-in with the open window - it is hardly is worth the effort.)

Mr. Smith believes Gerry McCann may be the man he saw on the Rua da Escola. Some say this is an  impossibility because Gerry was dining in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the sighting. Well, he is if you believe some of the statements of the Tapas 9 but there is no independent corroboration by any of the waiters that he was there exactly when Kate sounded the alarm after 10 pm nor can any independent witness put Gerry in the Tapas restaurant for the period of time prior to Kate raising the alarm. So there is nothing to say that this wasn't Gerry that the Smith's saw who then dumped the child he was carrying and returned to take his seat in the Tapas just before Kate showed up.

But, could he have made it to the location of the Smith sighting and back in time? Before I went to Praia da Luz I was told by some the idea was laughable, that the Smith sighting was quite a distance from the Tapas - half a mile is what the McCanns claim in their documentary, Madeleine was Here.

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and half (1/2) mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town.

When I looked at a map before I went to Portugal on Google and put in the locations, I did come up with 800 meters (half-mile) but that was by car and followed a rather circuitous route. the walking route didn't seem that far and, indeed, Google said it would take six minutes.

This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him  and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner.

And, yes, it does take a bit of time to hide the body, but, in a pinch and a panic, I saw three good places to ditch a corpse in a hurry; a storage shed right by the road only part way to the beach (cutting an extra minute or so off the trip), a large clump of reeds where the road accesses the beach and one could quickly stuff the little body into, and, also at that location, a number of overturned small boats one could temporarily store a body underneath. At this point in time, if one would just trying to lose a dead child, any place might do, including a dumpster of which there were a number of in the area. If the body is later found in any of the those places, it could be suspected that a sex predator dumped his victim there, and, if the body wasn't immediately discovered and one had time to find a better spot to prevent the child being found and an autopsy done, any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours. If there was no one out searching, these locations are dead quiet and no one is around; I can testify to since I spent from 3 am to 5 am wandering about Praia da Luz and never ran into anyone.

Which sighting is more likely to be Madeleine McCann? The Smith sighting, clearly, but the McCanns will have none of it unless it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. I repeat what I stated in my last blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did a Kidnapper Muck with Anything?

Evidence does not have to be in the form of forensic evidence  - DNA, fingerprints, hair, physical damage, etc. -  for a case to be built and for guilt to be proven in a court of law. Although it is very popular today for juries to rely more and more on forensics to come up with a guilty verdict, direct testimony and circumstantial evidence without any forensics at all can still be enough to prove someone's guilt. If thirty people give direct testimony that Joe Smith came into the room with a rifle and gunned down a bunch of people, this would be pretty good evidence even if Joe ran off with the gun and ditched it down a mineshaft.

Likewise, Jane Tanner's eyewitness testimony could be credible if there was not the question of her actually being on the street when and where she said she was (since two other eyewitness accounts state she was not there at all). Add to this, issues over whether the lighting was good enough and the witness close enough for her to have really have seen a man carrying a child, a child in specific clothing, and likely, this testimony would be torn to shreds in court. So let's move to the circumstantial evidence in this case. The McCanns made an effort to build the case for an abductor from circumstantial evidence that did not include forensics of any sort. The theory is that an abductor was hiding in the room while Gerry was checking on the children. This theory is based on the timing of the raised shutters and open window and the ever-changing position of the bedroom door. And, of course, Jane Tanner's sighting. But let's stay with the physical evidence for now.

If all these things can validate a stranger in the room at the very time Gerry is in the apartment, then Jane Tanner's story gets a boost because as soon as Gerry walked out the sliding doors, the abductor would grab Maddie from the bed and run out of the front door, crossing the street just in time for Jane to see him. There is nothing wrong with developing a theory based on such things, if, in the end, these things are supportable in some way and make logical sense when the day is done. It still doesn't mean it is true, but at least it could be a good theory. And, if the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence really holds water, that theory may be good enough to accept as a factual rendition of what indeed did happen and eventually will stand up in a court of law as part of a criminal case. Okay, so can we find evidence to support Jane's 9:15 sighting and the hypothesis that a kidnapper was in the McCann apartment and in the children's room at the same time Gerry was?

IMPORTANT: FIRST STATEMENTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS. THERE IS MORE TRUTH IN THEM AND MORE ATTEMPTS TO QUICKLY STAGE (USING SIMPLE LIES) THAN IN LATER INTERVIEWS

May 4, 2007 Gerald McCann Witness Statement 

Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club,using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant.

At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked (so why is Gerry going through the front door?). He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.

At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key (Why is Kate not going through the sliding door?) and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.

It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, JANE, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. JANE will be better able to clarify this situation.

Okay, let's stop here. What we have learned is that Gerry says BOTH he and Kate used a key to enter the apartment through the locked front door. This would be consistent with a locked apartment which would not allow a stranger easy access and increase safety of the children staying alone in an exposed corner apartment. 

Then Gerry immediately states that the sliding door was always left open which invalidates the behavior of going to the front door and using a key. Why? To me, in conjunction with other information, this appears to be an addition to his story which allows Matthew Oldfield to do a check at around 9:30 (even though members of the Tapas group did not do visual checks on each others' children previously).

But, what does Gerry say about the bedroom door? Nothing. He does not point out anything alarming about this door in his interview. And he even states that when Matthew went into the room that the shutters were closed and the door half-open as usual.

Gerry did not see the shutters raised nor the window open nor the door anything but half-open. In fact, everything was normal when he went into the apartment using his key. He saw his children (allegedly) and left because nothing was out of place (allegedly). He chats with Jes, doesn't see Jane, but wants Jane to tell her story of a man with a child she saw from behind and from a hell of a long way off.

Let's go to  Matthew Oldfield's May 4th Witness Statement.


Gerry allegedly went into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that
Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door
was half-open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant.
In answer to a question from the inspector, the interviewee does not know if Gerry met anyone while
he was checking the children. He did not mention it.

 At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on
the children. He states that the door of the fourth apartment (room?), that was occupied by
Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to
see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all
quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but
not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him
that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

Clearly, if the McCanns were fabricating a story, the one thing they can't have happen is for the abductor to have taken Maddie before Gerry checks since Gerry is supposed to have seen the child at around 9:10 pm. So, the room should have to be dark at that time. Interestingly though, at this point, Gerry is not saying the door was anything but in the usual position which is corroborated by Matthew. The usual position seems to be half-open, at least at this point in the renditions.

Note that Matthew says he can see the children quite well (although Gerry could also in the dark as he looked at Madeleine and thought what a lucky man he was although, perhaps, we don't know, if another light from inside the apartment had been turned on and filtered through the door). Remember this until the end of the post. (It is odd though that he can also see an empty bed against the wall and, since he has never been in the apartment before to know where Maddie sleeps, the empty bed does not worry him enough to step in the room and see if Maddie is in the other one).


Now, to Kate McCann's May 4th Statement

At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.


Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself.

Kate mentions nothing in her statement about Matthew observing more light or a half-open door. Her statement appears to be the only one with a changed door position which would indicate that there was no proof "the abductor" was in the bedroom with Gerry. Furthermore, since Matthew said the door was half-open, then "the abductor" must have flung it the rest of the way open AFTER Matthew left the apartment (if he was ever even there).

You might stop and note that Kate, who gave her interview later in the day, is now entering the sliding door like Matthew, in spite of the fact Gerry says she used her key on the front door like him. One could think Gerry simply forgot how the both of them came into the apartment but it is highly unlikely he would not remember something so important the morning after. It is far more likely, as the hours went on, the story was altered to support the abductor theory. It is not uncommon to see fabrications develop as people attempt to convince someone of a particular story. I am not saying the McCanns and their friends did this, but the radical changes and inconsistencies in their stories are a red flag.

Interestingly, Jane Tanner rendition of her sighting of the man with the child is vastly different from the McCanns on May 4th. It is my belief both of them thought she was going to state that she saw a man going down the road behind her after she turned the corner, not before it, whenever it was she went for her check, if she even did. If you have read any of Jane's interviews, they are far, far longer than anyone else's; Jane has motormouth and simply can not keep it simple. I believe she may have overdone her scenario and, in doing so, added in Jerry and Jes and ended up with a problem of not being seen by Gerry and Jes. Later, as often happens when someone is trying to convince the police and public something happened, the McCanns may have worked to make her story fit because it gives Gerry an alibi at the time "the abductor" is seen.

Of course, then if the Jane saw the abductor while Gerry was talking to Jes, then the abductor had to be in the room with Gerry; hence; the shifting door story evolves.



Some very fascinating things comes from the McCann own documentary, Madeleine was Here (Part One: 00:10-1:30)

I did my check about ten o'clock. I went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood actually... and thought, oh, all quiet....and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn around...  I just noticed the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we left it. I went to close it to about here and then as it got to here, it suddenly (Kate slams the door shut) slammed and then as I opened it..... it was then that I thought I would look at the children...at Sean and Amelie in the cots (which she could not have seen in her demonstration because the she has the door nearly closed with just room for her face to peep in at Madeleine)....all of which negates her May 4th statement that she immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open.

And I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here....and it was dark and I was looking...is that Madeleine or is that the bedding....I couldn't quite make it out.

So it seems to be much, much darker than when Matthew was there or Matthew has far better eyes than Kate or he made up that it was lighter if he was ever even in the room (and it may be impossible at this late stage to reenact the exact lighting circumstances of the night, but it seems the shutters being raised doesn't change the lighting in the room substantially from Kate's view; however, if one argues this point, then it being lighter for Matthew is meaningless as well). Her story is radically different from her original statement and it would seem in an effort to dramatize the event, the facts don't quite jibe.

So, what do the facts prove?  That no abductor could have been in the room until after Matthew was there and Kate's statement about what happened when she came to the apartment has questionable elements. So does Gerry's and so does Matthews and so does Jane's. It is no wonder why the PJ questioned their involvement and that there was ever an abduction. Even if you chalk up all these inconsistencies to bad memories and distraught witnesses, what they have stated hardly offers any support for Jane Tanner's 9:15 sighting or an abductor hiding in the children's bedroom during Gerry's check. The statements and McCann reenactments, in fact, caused the police and others to question their involvement and rightly so.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
 

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street

One can accept that on a night out with friends, drinking wine and chatting - maybe some folks are not perfectly correct with the exact time someone came and went. However, some things should be pretty clear and easy to remember about the night of and the day after a horrific event. Of all the Tapas 9 claims as to how things went down on the evening of May 3, 2007, Jane Tanner´s 9:15 (approximate) sighting of a man hurrying along Dr Augusthino da Silva with a child draped in his outstretch arms is the most unbelievable and unsupportable.

Let's ignore for now the issues of the lighting and whether Jane would be able see the details of the man and child's clothing so well. In order to prove whether she could or she could we would have to test her ability with a number of crime reenactments with the present lighting and, if one was able to see what she saw under those conditions, then one would have to use quite a bit of scientific and technical skill to build a set with the calculated lighting of that night and time and see if one could still see those details. I cannot obviously due that at this time, so I cannot make any absolute determinations on her ability to see what she said she saw.

However, I can comment on what Gerry and Jeremy (Jeremy Wilkins, also called Jez) said they didn't see - namely Jane.

Retired British police officer, PM, and I reenacted the scenario and I learned something very interesting. If Gerry's claim that he crossed the street, the Rua Dr Gentil Martins to speak to Jeremy is true (in his later statement, not his first which only said on his way back to the Tapas, he "crossed ways" which should mean "ran into," not ran across the street to talk to), then it is indeed possible for the two men to have neither seen Jane nor any man carrying a child across the street at the corner whilst they were conversing.

PM took thirteen steps to cross from one side to the other and I saw him out of the corner of my eye from the spot Gerry says he was standing with Jeremy. If, as Peter reminded me as we discussed the way men chat and the way women chat, that men tend to talk less face to face than women do, but more at angles, looking about themselves and not at each other, it would be totally possible for the men to have their backs to the street behind and never see a man quickly walk by, even if it took him thirteen strides. Interestingly, if they are looking down at a baby in a pram or off to the left side of the street, they might actually have not seen Jane go by either.

But, Jane denies that is how it went down and Jeremy agrees with her. Both state Gerry and Jeremy were on the same side of the street Jane walked up and Jane claims she was right on top of them when she walked by. Now, I would say, if this was true, it doesn't matter where these men were looking while talking; at least one would see Jane, and, more likely, both of them would see her. And, if they were positioned in such a way that both of their backs were to Jane as she came up behind them, they would have seen the man with the child crossing directly in front of them. If they had their backs to the man behind them, they couldn't have missed Jane walking straight at them. No matter exactly how they were standing, it is hardly believable that neither man would notice the only other person on the street trotting right up to them, past them, and on to the end of the street. Anyone on the street at that time of night at a time when Praia da Luz is very empty would very likely catch one's attention, so Jane didn't get lost in the crowd.

Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.

No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.

Let’s see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah, “HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT, I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”

All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview:

She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children

.

This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview.

But, you might point out, as Jane did:

... if I was trying to make this up, don’t you think I would have made damn sure they saw me?

Yes, I guess you would... if you could have, Jane. The problem is Jeremy Wilkins didn’t see you and, if Gerry was standing with his back to you, then Jeremy was most likely facing you and would have seen you clearly coming up the way. Or, if you want to go back to men both standing sort of at angles and not looking directly at each other, both men would have seen you AND the man carrying the child as you walked past them into their view and the man crossed the road directly in front of them. Tricky bit of a problem, eh?

Jeremy Wilkins says he and Gerry were standing right by the gate on the apartment side of the road.

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.

Jane says she walked right up to them and passed them. Jeremy Wilkins says he never saw her or the man. Gerry says he never saw her or the man which he must say or he has to call Wilkins a liar. I think he solves this problem by moving their location to the opposite side of the road where it is possible for them to both have not seen Jane or any man with a child. Then he doesn’t have to go up against Wilkins, but merely state he remembers where they were standing a bit differently.

It is Kate who sums the whole situation up quite interestingly in her book, Madeleine.

Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there.

Indeed! What is important is all three of them were there. What does it really matter if all three of them are there? What does it matter if Jane Tanner saw the man five minutes later when she returned and neither man was on the street? It matters because Jeremy Wilkins gives Gerry an alibi. No, not Jane. Jane Tanner is not that useful in giving Gerry an alibi because she is one of the Tapas 9. Jeremy Wilkins is the LAST UNBIASED WITNESS who saw Gerry before Madeleine was found missing and before the Smiths’ 9:50-9:55 sighting of a man carrying a little child toward the beach.

No one outside the Tapas 9 can verify that Gerry returned to the table after his 9:15 check on his children or that he remained at the table until Kate gave the alarm. Jeremy Wilkins, being with Gerry at the time Jane sees “the abductor carrying off a child,” gives Gerry an airtight alibi for the only time that he can get one for that evening during that time frame.

Considering Kate and Gerry downplayed any importance to the Smith sighting until far later when they agreed it could be the abductor but ONLY if it was the same man Jane saw and Kate insists that it is mighty important the three of them were there when Jane saw a child being carried off, I repeat, the only reason this should be a big deal is that Jeremy is Gerry’s alibi.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What about the Window?

After I posted my first blog of this series, we had quite a rousing discussion over the issues of lighting in Praia da Luz in 2007 and if an abductor would feel unnerved going in and out of a window at that location (I am speaking of using this window for purposes of child abduction, not a lesser crime).

#1 Because the lighting was not horrifically deficient and the window was not positioned in a location where it would be extremely unlikely for someone to observe an abductor moving in and out of a window (and, for that matter, quite high odds that someone could observe the crime even though Praia da Luz was not flooded with visitors at the time the McCanns were there), I do not believe an abductor would have targeted the apartment by way of the front window.

But suppose this abductor did decide he really wanted the child inside and he couldn't access the doors. Perhaps he was willing to take a chance going in the window at a time he observed the parents had left the children without any adult supervision.

Could he pull up the shutters, open the window, and climb into the apartment without causing any damage, being heard, or leaving evidence? The McCanns say they believe the window was locked (but not absolutely positive) and the shutters were down. If you are inside the house and you want to open the shutters, you must pull on a cord which raises them (pictured above). If you want to break in, you must push them up; they make a horrible noise and they don't stay up...they go up 4/5 of the way and then fall back down. In the video you can see retired British police officer, PM, giving it a go (this video is distorted due to an unfortunate sideways filming and when compressed for uploading, stretched the horizontal dimension; PM is tall and very fit as you will see in future photos ...sorry, PM!)

So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

My next post will focus on who could have come in and out the doors.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

“Martha? I’m stepping out on the balcony for a smoke. Hey, Martha, come here! What the hell is that man doing at that window? You see right there? He’s busting in the window? Martha, go call the police! Hey, he’s crawling in flat….must be planning to steal…oh, my god, Martha! Tell the police he’s carrying out a child! I’m running downstairs! Maybe I can stop him!”

(The above is an imagined scenario for those who are pretended to not understand this...clearly I am just trying to make a point).

Yes, you are looking at Apartment 5A, the very apartment the McCanns were renting on May 3^rd, 2007. The time is 10 pm on February 12, 2012. The photo was taken from the third floor of the building across the street. There was some shrubbery along the left wall of the parking lot that has been removed but the view of the McCanns door and window would not have been obscured (I must add since I have been rightly corrected and I have doublechecked the photos at that time, there are trees also lining the back side on the street, it is difficult to say today if one is high up looking down from one balcony or the other, who can see the window). My purpose of this photo was to show that the window and door of 5A was not a location that was as hidden from view as one might think.

Predators who crawl in and out windows tend to choose windows that look out on dark empty spaces or are nowhere near other buildings. For example, a predator might break in on the back side of an apartment building that has no lights and nothing but a deserted lot behind. A predator might crawl in the back window of an isolated house. But the 5A window was on a corner with traffic going by, on a parking lot which people are driving in and out of, under other apartment windows, across from other apartments and next to other apartments. Partially obscured from some angles, the predator knows the window is not obscured at other angles. He may not know exactly who can see him and who can't. For example, there is a break in the trees where the drive comes into the parking lot and through which the window can be seen. Just knowning that there is an apartment building looming over one's crime area for people to look down on you (either breaking in or out or leaving the area with a child) would be unnerving. Any predator would be smarter going in the back door which is far easier to slip in and out of and not be seen.

The lights on the buildings and in the streets turn the building into a veritable fishbowl (some claim massive lighting improvement since that day but I have heard that it has not changed much). What idiot would think breaking in the window at Apartment 5A or carrying a child out of that window or even the door next to it would be a terribly bright idea? One thing kidnappers know is there are enough human fish in the sea that one doesn’t have to abduct someone under such risky conditions.

There are those who note the style of lamps in town have changed (from globe-shaped to the more boxy style now seen) and there are a couple of added lights to the McCann building. True, but this does not mean that the location was dark and dismal and a predator would be able to skulk around unseen. From my third floor apartment, I can clearly see the windows in the building on the other side of the road from the McCanns and it has no added lights at all. It is not clear that the change of street lamp has significantly increased lighting (some say it has and some say it hasn't - I haven't found statistics on this) but, suffice it to say, if it was good enough light for Jane Tanner to see a man carrying a little child off at a distance and be able to describe his clothes and hers, then it is possible for many others to see this man as well. He would know this and choosing so public a location to abduct a child would be unusual. Finally, it was a full moon night, so the lighting may have been even better than normal (though not necessarily that early, but a predator may not be thinking of that because the night before moonrise was earlier and we don´t even know if he might have not gotten an opportunity - if he did - until two hours later.

The next picture shows the front side of the apartment building with close-up of the window of Apartment 5A. I am standing in the doorway. Can you see how bright it is at night? (Again that light may be deceptive as it was added , but you can see how exposed the window is on a path people are coming out of their apartments on and at the end of that wall is the entrance from the parking lot, not to mention a full moon shining down on white buildings and light-colored walks). What would Mr. Predator do if he crawled out of the window with a child to find a car pulling in to park right there in the lot? He would be trapped. He still has to walk down that little path, turn right out the opening into the parking lot, come back down along the wall, then cross the parking lot, go out of the parking lot, turn right and walk down to the corner and cross the street - where Jane Tanner supposedly saw him.

It is also worth noting that there is a lack of proper photos and videos from that night or even the next, so we don't know the exact conditions. Furthermore, we cannot trust what photos and videos show us because they can be brightened or darkened according to what the presented of these evidences want the audience to think. Supporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner´s sighting area to be brightened and the window darkened. Nonsupporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner's sighting area to be pitch black and the window sitting in a spotlight. So, we likely will have difficulty in knowning the reality. However, and again, the predator does what is wisest and I still have to say that the front of 5A is not the choice a predator should make when the back door, the supposedly open sliding back door, exists and cuts down on ones visibility leaving the residence and escaping from the area.

This picture shows the corner where Jane Tanner sees a man cross the street coming from the apartment, child in his outstretched hands. If you were an abductor, would you be comfortable choosing to walk out in the open, across the well-light street with three people on it? Would you at least think walking the other direction hugging the wall might be a bit smarter, maybe cut down your chances of being seen? (The abuctor MAY have seen just seen the backs of Gerry and Jez as he peeped around the corner and stepped out just as Jane came out of the Tapas door and up the street getting caught in her sight line.) But walking the other direction is much safer and smarter unless one has no choice).

Robert Murat, the only other Arguido (suspect) in the case, lived on a couple blocks down the way in the direction Jane Tanner claimed the man carrying a child was walking. But, Robert Murat was a known individual in town and many people in Praia da Luz own places here or rent for a long period of time and return year after year. Would someone who knows people might recognize him walk down well-lit streets - his face totally exposed – straight to his own house? He would have to have an IQ far below 70 to think this would be clever.

If anyone took a child from the apartment, it would be smarter to walk the opposite way of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen. Here you can see the wall I just mentioned that he could walk very close to and be out of sight of anyone looking down from the tall apartment building across the street. Even more intelligent would be for an abductor to leave the back of the apartment by the sliding glass doors and hurry down the enclosed path which leads up to the parking area at the front of the apartment and go out at the end of the street and onward to the darker end of the road. It is exactly this path that leads to the Smith sighting.

Praia da Luz is a very cozy, brightly lit, off-the-main road very small and charming resort town. No sex ring is going to choose this location to target children. A child sex predator might lurk about here but he would be wiser abducting a child from the outskirts of the town or in pretty much any other nearby village. There are some darker side streets further to the edge of the town that a predator or someone carrying a child would be a bit less visible . Apartment 5A would rank pretty much at the bottom of any abductor’s list of places to grab a kid. The only reason someone would remove a child from 5A would be of necessity. Then he would never take the route Jane Tanner claimed she saw the man carrying a child.

More on the most likely route one would take to carry Madeleine from Apartment 5A in my next blog.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What I Hope to Accomplish in Portugal

Sunday, February 5, 2012 (Washington DC)

Many of you are wondering what I expect to accomplish in Portugal for the two week period I will be in the country. Some have scoffed on Twitter that I am on a fool's errand or some egotistical fantasy trip, that I think I am going to pop over to Praia da Luz and solve the McCann case in a snap. Hardly. I am not that unrealistic nor am I so blind to reality and my abilities that I think I am going to do any such thing. What I am trying to do is learn a bit more. Since my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann did earn some dividends (although not much since it was pulled from Amazon under threat of Carter-Ruck and the McCanns) and I stated I would put fifty percent of the earnings toward searching for Madeleine, I am doing that with the money.

I am approaching this case as I do others I have profiled. I plan to survey the area and then reanalyze the crime based on what I learn. Then, I plan to search in locations I believe Maddie may be.

I can accomplish the first part of the plan within ten days. The second part is unlikely to be fully accomplished and may require me to return to Portugal if I think another search has merit. I also may run into the "unknown factor" while I am in Praia da Luz. I may come across new information that will add to what is publicly known of the case or something that could change my profile. Although my top theory is that the evidence points to the McCanns involvement, the next most likely theory is that a local pedophile grabbed Madeleine and walked off with her to his lair. I do not at all believe Madeleine's disappearance had anything to do with a sex ring or someone who wanted a child. I do not believe Madeleine was taken away alive in a car. I believe Madeleine is not alive, whether the McCanns are involved or not.

Could I change this view? Sure. If I get to Praia da Luz, start analyzing the layout of the area and, suddenly, say, "Well, hell, if I had known that...." I don't expect this will happen but you never know. Being at the crime location is extraordinarily valuable when analyzing any case and this can change everything. If I do a one-eighty, I will not shirk my duty to disclose this and I will revise my profile as necessary.

What I won't be doing in Praia da Luz is going around questioning people. I am not a private detective and I don't have the right to do so in Portugal anyway. I won't refuse to talk to people but I am not knocking on doors and demanding people answer my questions. I will be analyzing and reconstructing the crime by way of the locations I can publicly access or have permission. I will do some experiments as to how long it takes to walk from A to B, check to see how easily something could be accomplished or how easily one can be seen carrying a child in certain places, and where a person could stash a body or not.

I will be searching for Madeleine in locations I believe have some merit. I am not going to discuss on this blog exactly where and how. I will tell you that when I get back.

Do I expect to find Maddie or the big clue that will lead me to her? The odds are not great that I will leave Portugal having accomplished that. I hope to increase my knowledge of what exactly happened to Madeleine. And, if I am really, really lucky, maybe I will unearth something of great value.

I am looking forward to my two weeks in Portugal. I am very curious to see what I will learn. I will try to blog daily on what I am doing and finding out (that I can release) and I hope all goes well. If, when my two weeks is up, I feel the trip was productive and I could use more time in Portugal, I will make a second trip to Praia da Luz in the coming months and continue my work.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Is Scotland Yard really about to Interview the Tapas 7?

Very fishy, if you ask me.

I find this whole story bogus as hell.

1. What timing! Less than 48 hours after the news goes out that I have issued a cease-and-desist letter to Gerry and Kate and 24 hours before I leave for Portugal, suddenly big breaking news in the Madeleine McCann case! The headline reads: Tapas 7 Will Help Madeleine McCann Detectives! I know many think that since the news organizations haven't exactly rushed to print a story about what I am doing, there is no need for diversion. This may be true, but the timing is so coincidental, I think Clarence Mitchell may be attempting to make sure the story doesn't gain any momentum, to quickly turn heads away and say, see, something is happening over at Scotland Yard; they are really making progress and the Tapas 7 are cooperating.

2. Of course, let's say that isn't true. That Clarence Mitchell doesn't really want anyone even pointing at the Tapas 7 because, after all, what do they even know what would be helpful if the McCanns are innocent? If Scotland Yard wants to interview them, hmm, that can't be good for the McCanns, can it?

3. So okay, let's suppose this has zip to do with me and Scotland Yard is planning to interview the Tapas 7. So they warn them? What? They want to give them time to get their stories down pat and perfect? What police department warns co-conspirators (if they are) that they are gearing up to interrogate them?

4. Why aren't the McCanns being interviewed?

5. Why would you spend millions of pounds and nine months going over the minutia of every tip before doing a crime scene analysis and a reconstruction and bringing in the main players for interviews? Why wouldn't you have required in the beginning that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 to do be interviewed, polygraphed, and to participate in a reconstruction if the McCanns want the review?

6. Which brings me to this: Either this is all smoke-and-mirrors and a distraction or Scotland Yard took nine months and a shitload of taxpayer money to grow a brain and conduct a homicide investigation as even the smallest police department would, in a proper investigative manner starting at Square One.


7. But, then, let's go back and really reread the article. You will find the only time Scotland Yard says anything is with this statement

“We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”

Which means they have made no plans to interview anyone at this point in time and have told no one they would.

Reread what was really said:

The friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who accompanied them on their holiday to Portugal almost five years ago, are expecting interview requests as soon as officers feel they could assist the investigation.

After nine months of information gathering, officers are checking statements from key witnesses.

In other words, the article simply says the officers are checking statements (well, duh, they have read them in the police reports so this is merely stating the obvious) and the friends expect they might be interviewed if the officers feel they could be helpful. This is a story from their point of view, not Scotland Yard's.

8. The news story is a non-news story. It is pure spin and, in my opinion, nothing but a distraction so the cease-and-desist order to the McCanns and my trip to Portugal will be continue to be ignored by the media.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Press Release: Cease-and-Desist Letter issued to Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of Missing Madeleine McCann

PRESS RELEASE

Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing Madeleine McCann, find themselves for the first time at the other end of a potential legal action. Top defense attorney, Anne Bremner, counsel to the Friends of Amanda Knox and the families of Rebecca Zahau and Susan Cox Powell, has issued a cease-and-desist letter (content posted below) on behalf of American criminal profiler Pat Brown whose book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann was removed from sale by Amazon following a claim by the McCanns that the book was defamatory. In recent years, the McCanns have instructed their solicitors, Carter-Ruck, to send numerous cease-and-desist letters to people who have publicly questioned their possible involvement in their daughter’s disappearance nearly five years ago while on family holiday in Portugal.

Next week on February 8th, retired solicitor Tony Bennett faces English prison as the McCanns’ fight to shut down his efforts to bring focus to aspects of the missing child case that point to the parents’ possible involvement. Also, the McCanns have sued the detective on their daughter’s case, Dr. Goncalo Amaral, for libel and have had his book, Truth of the Lie, pulled off the worldwide market. The trial is scheduled in Portugal for April. Now, Pat Brown has fought back for the cause of freedom of speech and justice, alleging that the McCanns have interfered with her right to conduct business and have damaged her professional reputation with their successful removal of her book from sale. On Monday, Pat will leave for Portugal to continue her quest for truth and justice in the case of Madeleine McCann. The Find Madeleine Campaign operated by Gerry and Kate McCann has spent some 2.5 million pounds on the supposed search for their daughter, Madeline, who vanished in Praia da Luz, Portugal while on vacation with the family nearly five years ago and come up empty handed. Since last May, a 37-man team headed up by Scotland Yard has spent 1.5 million pounds on salaries plus many more pounds following up supposed leads with no sign of success. Altogether, four million pounds has been forked out to locate a missing child with zero results. What, then, does American criminal profiler Pat Brown hope to accomplish with her two week trip to Portugal, beginning next week on February 6, with her small band of assistants and a few hundred euros of her own money?

She could find the truth. She could find Madeleine. She could find nothing but at least she won’t be costing the taxpayers millions or draining the pocketbooks of kindhearted donators chasing useless leads.

Pat Brown will be following up on the theory she purported in her Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, her eBook which was pulled by Amazon at the request of the British solicitors Carter-Ruck on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann. Amazon was told the book was defamatory in spite of the fact Ms. Brown clearly stated facts in the case, developed a theory based on those facts, and repeated numerous times that she makes no claim that the McCanns are guilty of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance (other than leaving three children unattended night after night in the resort apartment). Since Gerry McCann clearly stated during the Leveson Inquiry, “I strongly believe in freedom of speech” and “I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory,” it is difficult to understand why the McCanns wanted the book to be repressed except that it was selling well and that the theory she presented was being considered credible by a number of readers.

During her trip to Portugal, Pat Brown will study the town of Praia da Luz and environs, reconstruct the crime, and examine possible locations as to where Madeleine might have been taken, dead or alive. If she discovers evidence to support a theory other than the one that was the focus of her book, she will pursue that information. She is looking forward to meeting with Dr. Goncalo Amaral, the ex-detective on the McCann case. Meanwhile, it is her hope and that of her lawyer, Anne Bremner, that the McCanns rethink their actions regarding the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and instruct their solicitors to have Amazon return the book to the market (now available at Smashwords and Barnes & Noble online).

For interviews and media appearances, please contact:

Pat Brown
The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

she2000@comcast.net

301-633-1151

www.patbrownprofiling.com
www.sheprofilers.com

and

Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-1374

abremner@staffordfrey.com

206.623.9900

www.annebremner.com

--------------------------------------------

Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street

Seattle, WA 98101-1374

February 1, 2012

Adam Tudor

Carter-Ruck

6 St Andrew Street

London EC4A 3AE

England

Dear Mr. Tudor,

In July 2011, American criminal profiler, author, and television commentator, Pat Brown, released on June 15, 2011 a self-published book of thirty-pages on Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and Amazon.de, for the price of US2.99. It was titled Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, sold 850 copies over the next five weeks and garnered 49 nearly all five star reviews on Amazon.uk alone. Then, the book vanished from sale on all three sites. Upon questioning, Pat Brown was informed by Amazon that they had received a communications from Carter-Ruck on behalf of their clients Gerald and Kate McCann that the book was defamatory.

Mon 7/25/2011 7:27 PM

Dear Pat,

We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat (sic) McCann.

Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.

Carter-Ruck can be reached at:

6 St Andrew Street

London EC4A 3AE

T 020 7353 5005

Best regards,

Robert F.

http://www.amazon.com

This was quite a surprise to Pat Brown as she had never received any communications from the McCanns nor their solicitors concerning any defamatory material in this book nor had she ever received any communication concerning any defamatory material in her blogs on the case she has posted online at The Daily Profiler over the last four years. As Ms. Brown is an analyst of evidence, she is careful to not state anything as a fact that is not a fact and to clearly state what is a hypothesis or a theory as opposed to proof. She has publicly and repeated explained to anyone reading her analyses of crime that criminal profiling is a methodology which explores the possible and theoretical scenarios that might be considered as logical based on evidence connected with the crime - forensic, linguistic, or behavioral. Any findings resulting from investigative tools which are not acceptable in certain courts of law (such as cadaver dogs or polygraphs) are noted as suitable for speculation, but not as solid proof of anyone’s guilt or involvement in criminal activities. Criminal profiling itself is an investigative tool and not a finding of guilt as Pat Brown clearly notes in her book.

Due to the speculative, if analytical, nature of Deductive Criminal Profiling, the methodology used by Pat Brown, she was careful to repeat numerous times throughout her publication that she was not accusing the McCanns of being involved in any crime or in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine. She was clearly only “purporting a theory” and exercising “free speech,” both manners of communication Gerry McCann stated he strongly supported under oath at the Leveson Inquiry on November 23, 2011 in London:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.” Gerry McCann

As Pat Brown also believes in free speech and the right to purport a theory, it would seem she and Gerry McCann are in agreement that any work that purports a theory as opposed to false statements of fact is acceptable under freedom of speech. Pat Brown’s Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann opens up discussion of what happened to the McCann’s daughter, further stimulating interest in the case, and keeping Madeleine in the minds of the public. As the McCanns claim this is what they want, Pat Brown’s book is in accordance with this desire. In fact, it is the McCanns themselves who have clearly encouraged massive interest and speculation on this case. Pat Brown is in no way, therefore, infringing on any wish to keep talk about the case to a minimum.

By speaking and writing out quite often and in such a high profile manner, the McCanns have succeeded in making Madeleine McCann the most well-known missing child in modern history (since the Lindbergh baby in 1932). They have stimulated debate worldwide as to what happened to Madeleine. They have publicly purported their own theories; that someone took Madeleine because they wanted to raise a child, that she is being held captive in a sex ring, and that a pedophile had taken her. They have publicly disclosed many details of the case and repeatedly told their version of what occurred before, during, and after the disappearance of the daughter. They have discussed their emotions, behaviors, and opinions. Pat Brown is carrying on that discussion.

Utmost of importance in the entire matter, is the handling and funding of child abduction cases, the prevailing attitudes toward these crimes, and the future of catching child predators. Because the victims are so young and innocent, missing children are among the most publicized cases in the world. In the last three decades with the increase of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, awareness of child sex predators and stranger child abduction has radically increased fears of parents that their child will be taken and murdered. In reality, stranger abduction continues to be exceedingly rare for children of Madeleine’s age. Regardless, the paranoia that is engendered when a small child goes missing is a great stress to the community, the police, and resources. Therefore, it is extremely important that each and every case be properly analyzed and understood so that wrong ideas aren’t promulgated and funding and efforts are wasted investigating such crimes improperly. Each child that goes missing is a terrible tragedy for the parents, siblings, relative, friends, and community. Pat has great empathy for any family of a missing child and, most of all, compassion for the innocent young person who has suffered abuse, terror, sexual assault, and, possibly, an early death at the hands of others.

We are requesting that you respect Pat Brown’s right to free speech and to purport a theory as Gerry McCann has stated is not a problem for him. We request that the claim of libel be retracted for the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the book permitted to be returned for sale at Amazon.

Regards,

Anne M. Bremner