Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to pull One Big One over on the Public
I just finished watching BBC's Crimewatch on the new findings in the Madeleine McCann case. With the cooperation of New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police), a new "reconstruction" was shown (that was little more than a condensed version of the previous pro McCann documentary "Madeleine was Here" and new theories were laid out (because Detective Andy Redwood seems to not have found enough evidence of abduction to really point to any particular motive). There is new "evidence" (and I put quotes around that because Scotland Yard wishes us to take them at their word) to eliminate one suspect, and there is "new" evidence (and I put quotes around "new" because there isn't anything new) putting another suspect in the top slot.
My immediate reaction to the show was this post to Twitter:
Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details.
Let me try to break down what was off with this show without having to completely explain the entire case. I do suggest for those that become confused to read Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie or see the documentary on it, or read my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at B&N and Smashwords (not at Amazon where the McCanns had it banned), and read my blogs that I wrote following my trip to Praia da Luz on The Daily Profiler.
Okay.
I will start with the conveniently missing details: any and all evidence or information in the police files that points to the McCanns' involvement, the death of the child in the flat, the cadaver dogs hits in the flat and the rental car, the inconsistencies in the statements of many of the Tapas 9, within their own statements and in relation to each others' statements, and the fact that the Mr. Smith of the Smith family said that the man they saw carrying the little girl toward the beach looked like Gerry. Also left out; that there was no evidence of an abductor or anyone breaking into the flat through the window, that Gerry thought an abductor was behind the door, and that Matthew Oldfield never really saw Madeleine when he did his supposed check. Oh, and while they show that Jane walked past the McCanns apartment and saw a man with a child, nothing was mentioned about her passing Gerry and Jeremy talking on the street (the narrow street that would caused her to have to cha-cha around the men but they never saw her).
The new reconstruction is a bare bones version, which does not explain how an abductor might have gotten in and taken Madeleine, nor which way he might have gone with her, nor any other particulars. All we learn is that Gerry went to make his check at 9:15, saw Madeleine and that the door was not in the position he thought he left it and he set it back, that at 9:30 Matthew Oldfield made the next check, and then Kate made her check, saw the door was a bit off, the window open and Madeleine gone. That is it.
So, we don't learn how an abductor got in, how he got Madeleine out, and when he did this.
Without presenting a shred of evidence, Scotland Yard gives us two conclusions that push the abduction toward 10 pm. Now, for some who think the McCanns found Madeleine dead behind the sofa where the cadaver dog hit and then Gerry carried her off to the beach passing the Smith family who told the police of their sighting, they might think this might be a clever plan of Scotland Yard to finally close in on the McCanns, but I don't think this is what they are attempting to do.
Let's look at the big news on the show tonight; Jane Tanner's sighting is NOT the "kidnapper" of Madeleine McCann. He is some tourist who happened to be carrying his own child home from the creche where she was being babysat (mind you he was walking in the wrong direction, toward the creche, but....never mind). Also, he was wearing the exact clothes described by Jane Tanner because the man remembers precisely what he was wearing six years ago. Interestingly, with all the hoopla about this man at the beginning of the Portuguese investigation, he never came forward, but now Mr-whoever-he-is (and Scotland Yard is not going to tell us), suddenly pops up and admits it was him.
What does this very questionable "discovery" do? It validates Jane seeing someone and invalidates the crime occurring at around 9:15. On the face of it, this should be a bad thing for the McCanns because this man was really Gerry's alibi. But, the way this is being spun, it will not matter. Why? Because Jane was not believed to be telling the truth by the Portuguese police (the PJ) and they believed the Smith sighting was Gerry (although Redwood claims the PJ overfocused on Jane's sighting as the suspect and ignored the Smith sighting - serious revisionist history). So, if Jane is a liar, then she is lying for a reason and the PJ believed it was to prove an abduction had occurred and Gerry put her up to the lie.
Now, if Jane is telling the truth, then the McCanns didn't push her to cover for them. This puts them one step closer to innocence.
But, of course, now that the only real "proof" of abduction while Gerry is alibied - Jane seeing someone carrying the child away while Gerry is on the street chatting with Jeremy- is gone, there is a problem. The way to solve it is to make sure there is another abductor and that is going to be the Smith sighting. Hence, the fact Matthew Oldfield didn't see Madeleine in her bed at 9:30 is left out of the reconstruction, so it appears that the abductor struck later than that, closer to 10 PM. So, now we have the right time for the abduction to coincide with the Smith sighting. The simple fact there could have been an abductor that late, now allows for that sighting not to be Gerry. Redwood also clearly states the man had graying hair which, as far as I know, Gerry did not have at the time. Does anyone remember the Smiths stating they saw any graying hair on the man with child heading to the beach? I don't.
Many think the e-fits looks just like Gerry; I don't think so. I think they had to make e-fits look similar enough because Mr. Smith said the guy looked like Gerry. But, the e-fits are just enough off for another man to be "found" that looks enough like Gerry to say it is understandable why Mr. Smith was confused. Of course, that Mr. Smith said the man looked like Gerry wasn't mentioned in the show so most people won't know, but later on, this can be addressed when it is necessary.
I think that man will surface just like the Jane Tanner suspect surfaced. At some point, we will hear that an innocent fellow who looks like Gerry came forward and said it was him with his daughter. Then, Gerry is completely exonerated and Scotland Yard will just have to find another suspect who was never seen. OR we will hear that Scotland Yard has identified some person from a sex ring who sort of looks like Gerry but they cannot divulge more. OR we will hear that it was likely some dead predator who looked enough like Gerry to be mistaken for him. No proof will every be provided that any of these people really exist but it doesn't matter to the general public. If Scotland Yard says it is so and the media backs it, it must be so. It may sound convoluted but, the combination of vagueness and connecting dots that don't exist can be a successful method to use to convince people of something that they are not going to thoroughly research themselves. A magician calls this "misdirection."
Then, mission accomplished. The McCanns are "proven" innocent, the PJ incompetent, Amaral a libeler, and Scotland Yard a fine police agency that did a great investigation to find Madeleine and at least answer the question of what happened to her.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
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.
68 comments:
Sadly, Pat, I very much fear that you will be proved right.
We live in very shocking times or rather it is becoming more and more apparent how corrupt are those in power and the institutions which they control.
The question I have is why? Why are Scotland Yard doing this? We can all read the evidence online and these include core documents. I believe pressure should now be applied to SY. What a crazy situation.
You know, Rico, why Scotland Yard would take part in this charade is beyond me. In fact, it is strange enough to keep making me go back and review all the evidence to make double sure that there is enough to implicate the McCanns. And I still find the evidence is compelling enough to override my disbelief that there could be a whitewash on this scale.
I've just watched basically the programme, able to fast forward now it's on catchup\i.player
Well, a lot of polished graphics and pretty stuff, ain't it just, plenty of filler, lacking in substance.
So, the only difference is, Jane Tanner sighting has been attributed to SOMEONE else with a child, the strong hint it is the Carpenters - but they were a family? where was the wife? etc.
Overlay graphics of Jane's sketchman - morphed into the parent.
I don't know about this. If it is the Carpenters, they would have been ruled in or out at the time
But let us remember STRONGLY something here, the Portuguese authorities were DEPENDENT upon the LP, particularly if it was the Carpenters, too and fro with information and translations & more importantly interpretation\appraisal of the information
In my mind, with all the information in the files, etc etc. Working backwards, the Smiths sighting was the LAST, it was always on the table, even if it didn't fit with JT's
All this has done is to clear up ambiguities of the cluster timeline of JT McCann & JW outside the apartment. What of all the subsequent hype and sightings, are they now void? or only 50% attributable?
From Sardine munchers to red herring catchers.
Planned verses unplanned? Or something else.
One thing is for sure I've never seen in all these years so much negative backlash to the McCanns, why now?
puddleduck
Redwood: “It (Tanner sighting) has meant the focus was always done & dusted by about quarter past."
If that were true, the McCanns would not have been suspects.
So, of course, Puddleduck, the Smith sighting had importance for most of the last six years. Tanner's sighting was struck down when the PJ realized the whole Tapas 9 groups's statements were squirrelly.
Redwood is a straight up liar.
Just something as an after thought. Panorama always presented it's programmes in this story tale way, rather like we saw last night.
Crimewatch was a raw, factual programme from the gut, with REAL people, saying REAL things\their experences. A rather off the cuff programme recorded in a bit of spare stage space.
In those days, you really thought it achieve the appeal on behalf of victims, concern from the heart. Police looked dragged in & wrong footed. It was clean, honest & purposeful.
Last night was a staged managed performance, of lights & filmed actions. False, insincere. Can't remember did it has music in the background?
It's lost something IT BECOME AN ENTERTAINMENT, rather than an genuine public service (talking here of the programme Crimewatch) not the BBC
puddleduck
PS
Hope this might be of interest to people outside the UK. Panorama is also a BBC programme & did it's main feature & did the splash of the Jane Tanners sighting, whilst the investigation was still under judicial secrecy.
It was really a cheesy show! The cops sitting around the table pretending to be working was really bad. And, with all the money they are going to get off ratings, couldn't they come up with any actors who actually looked like the McCanns?
I truly was surprised at how much it seemed like a bad true crime show and not a professional rendering with serious law enforcement commentary.
Hi Pat, didn't realise you are here live.
Many thanks for all you have done & achieved. And in particular the support of GA
I don't see this derails LISBON, in fact, it supports the high level of hype and manipulation
Perhaps now, Stuart Prior might look back on those emails with the T7 & JW, regarding the reconstruction so desperately needed. Dear call me ''Stu..''
And now in the arena of international diplomacy the MET expects no doubt to be fully supported by the Portuguese Authorities.
Madeleine deserves better.
REGARDS
puddleduck
No money made on ratings, the BBC is supported by buying a license to view to the government about £125 a year. The BBC is supposed to be a publicly owned service. No commercials. No additional revenues. Although it does make a lot of programmes which generate revenues.
The enforcement of license is quite rigorously enforced & with fines, if caught viewing without a license.
It's supposed to be a public service & offer neutrality.
puddleduck
Hi,
As recently as October 4th the Potuguese Attorney General, Joana Marques Vidal, has said:
"The process that existed in Portugal has a final dispatch, that can only be and should only be reopened in agreement to what is stated in the Law - new facts, etc - it's not reopened at the moment. Meanwhile, the English have a process ongoing in England since they consider that there were proceedings within their remit, a process of criminal investigation according to the English law, in the scope of which they requested the Portuguese state or the police and judicial Portuguese authorities some proceedings to be carried out for the process that is in England."
This is from the excellent Joana Morais blog.
If SY are in possession of new facts than it is abundantly clear that they are withholding from the primary jurisdiction of Portugal. This strikes me as unethical, borderline illegal. If they have new facts.
Remit under English Law then becomes the central question. What remit would allow SY to prosecute a foreign national, for example, for crimes committed on Portuguese soil. None. How could there be? This is why jurisdictions exist for heaven's sake.
What remit would allow SY to prosecute a *UK* national for such crimes without implicating an immediate reopening of the case under Portuguese jurisdiction. Ie without the presentation of new facts!
So why is this being done?
I think it is now simply a question of face saving. Too many high profile politicians, policemen and slebs have attached their reputations to this case. They saw in the McCann's "fairy tale" an opportunity to align themselves to a narrative that might play well to the UK public. They exploited the tale of a missing photogenic child without once stopping to consider it's validity. Welcome to the UK! Your children are their exploitation.
If it's of any scant consolation to anybody: can you imagine what it is actually like to *be* this man Redwood.
I would love to be proven wrong, I really would.
There is always money to be made, in some way, Puddleduck.
Yes, I am sort of here live, half asleep, keeping my dying cat company.
"And now in the arena of international diplomacy the MET expects no doubt to be fully supported by the Portuguese Authorities."
Well, Redwood surely trashed the PJ, basically stating they had everything wrong.
Some good insights, but here are a few you may of missed. The famous toy is never mentioned, they claimed it was 50 meters. Kate was shown repeatedly cuddling Maddie and looking at her when they put her to bed.
The bed was amazing when Kate checked, the toy is in 3 different positions in a 10 second clip.
Anonymous, Redwood is a blatant liar and I see nothing in his demeanor that makes me think he isn't loving every minute of his fame.
As to why, I think it has to be more than an opportunity to get some bragging rights. Often when cases go cold, I have parents who think the police are hiding some connection of someone in law enforcement who is connected to the crime; I rarely find this to be true. Most of the time, a case goes cold either because there simply isn't enough evidence to convict anyone or the detectives failed to analyze the case properly and went down the wrong track.
The times I see a police department lie and cover-up usually comes down to a case that they screwed up and are receiving bad press about; then they might fudge the "evidence" - like say they have evidence linking the crime to a dead killer or some thug in prison - and that gets the public off their back. They don't actually show the "evidence" and no one seems to realize that they really don 't have any.
But why the Met would go to the lengths they have for this cold a case, a case not in their jurisdiction, a case that is costing the UK taxpayers millions, boggles the mind. There has to be some damned good reason behind it all and it is not trying to find a dead girl.
Yes, it had certainly struck me that Redwood is enjoying this. He's even had a little media makeover for his 15 minutes.
So, the Mccanns are now usurping all the evidence which implicates them in this crime. So, instead of the Smith sighting implicating Gerry McCann, a new 'suspect' will be found who looks enough like Gerry to act as a plausible person the Smith family alleged to have saw.
And yes, this strategy involves getting rid of the Tanner sighting WHICH WAS TREATED AS CREDIBLE by the McCanns until now.
And this "planned abduction" would produce cadaver scents in approximately 11 places ALL linked to the McCann family, how? Did Crimewatch investigate that?
So, why would there be a coverup? Best guess: large scale sex abuse involving high ranking members of society with a link to the perpetrator of the Maddie Crime. Thus, if the Maddie perp is found out, so too are they.
Thanks for your down to earth reading of last night's Crimewatch programme. I was totally shocked at how poor it was. So much money has been poured into a foreign country missing child case and absolutely nothing has come from it. At least there are people like you, Pat, outside of the UK, not afraid to question the public official discourse. xxx
I believe I am right in thinking that Redwood is reporting to Hamish Campbell, Operational Command Unit commander; Hamish being the guy who was instrumental in convicting [since overturned]Barry George for the murder of Crimewatch presenter Jill Dando.....
what a small world?.... and what a wicked one too... genuinely; 'Thank God' for people like you Ms Pat Brown, and Mr Amaral... how else are we going to survive the evil that walks this earth?....utterly despondent and disillusioned to be living in a country where corruption appears to have no bounds. I hope your pussy cat passes peacefully. x
SY will have a huge bill from the paint section of Home Depot this year. They are going with this high-risk BS which puts their centuries old reputation in jeopardy because they have been forced into it as a result of the fact there is too much already in the public domain (and good on the Portuguese for making the files public otherwise it would be far simpler to cover this all up) . Already there are dozens of holes in last night's "depiction" which have been glossed over or ignored and the press are spinning like tops. They will just brazen it out. If anything emerges - witnesses, remembered events etc - then just like with CEOP's "send us your photos" farce, they can all be buried deeply and forever.
It will be interesting to see next year's honours list: "Arise Chief Superintendent SIR Deadwood"?
Whatever is behind this must be big.
Why would the Tapas group (aside from the McCanns) collude in covering up her death?
The conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense.
If I was sitting with some friends enjoying supper on holiday & some of them announced they'd killed their 3 year daughter & would I help cover it up my answer would be a firm negative.
How did the McCanns persuade all 7 of them to go along with the whitewash?
My question is this: how would you gauge the on-screen reactions of the parents of a 3 year old girl, now 'missing' or 'dead' for 6 years...wouldn't you be a little more upset? I'm a father of a 14 year old girl and I would have thought I would be incredibly more upset at the lack of progress from the original investigation and angry at the 'false' accusations if I was innocent of any wrongdoing. I wonder what a psychological profile of their on-camera eye-movements, reactions, emotions etc would reveal...
We all knew the timeline & the ambiguities, including the Smith sighting.
When the hype via the Panorama Programme regarding the Jane Tanner sighting was in full swing, it was really a pro-British push of this segment of the happenings that night. It was the British Media who reinforced this, time and time again, with who's ever agenda was behind it.
This is of course whilst the investigation was still in progress and under judicial secrecy the UK media is jumping around, pull your bloody finger out find Sketchman\JT witness alleged abductor. Were they the media, the advisers that stupid to not realise the significance of what they were doing by disregarding the Smith sighting, at that time.
But still the case is under investigation(then) and all the information, Tanner & Smiths remain on the table, as they still do to this day.
I don't recall, reading that the Portuguese Authorities ignored the Smith family's sighting. Or even over played the Tanner sighting. After all it was Panorama she played the ace card\sketchman
Now about the Smith family, I don't think they facially recognised anyone. What Mr Smith recognised in an unconscious unprovoked moment, is the posture & gait of Mr McCann getting of the plane, as the same as he saw that night. IMHO that is more important than facial recognition.
Since he would have been exposed to many photos of the McCanns and that could be challenged as contaminated memory. The gait and posture throws up another memory & recall. I think it's important.
As we approach Christmas, we will continue now into a period of LULL, peace and quiet. Except for Lisbon - well that will not be reported to us, here in the UK.
Because.... we are too stupid to see what the MSM feeds us
puddleduck
What I find absolutely peculiar is the TOTAL ABSENCE OF DAVID & FIONA PAYNE from this narrative..
David , who so kindly popped in on Kate & the children to help out after tea, during bathtime. ( Kate was wearing nought but a towel)
No mention, not even during dinner.
David, who featured so pointedly in Kate's own narrative.
Spooky, huh?
I think Detective Andy Redwood is a very clever man and knows a lot more information than what was revealed on 'Crimewatch'
As studier of atatement analysis there was one phrase spoken by gerry mccann that stood out and also led me to think of a motive for her disappearance.
Gerry mccann proudly talked about her birth and said the following "She was born ALMOST PERFECT"
This is not the first time he has said this and coming from a parent, even if he is a doctor, it is concerning to say the least.
When a child is born the new parents feel instant love (despite the gunk as one of my friends so succinctly put it)
10 tiny fingers, 10 tiny toes and a set of healthy lungs is what they look for, their new arrival is perfect.
Why does gerry need to tell us Maddie was born almost perfect?
What was wrong with her that was clearly noticeably not perfect?
A missing limb, extra fingers and/or toes, an extra head?
We know all 3 children were IVF and we also know they are fly by night catholics (staunch catholics when they need somewhere to talk/get to meet the pope/collect donations)
IVF is a sin in the catholic church.
Given what we know, that Madeleine vanished sometime during the week of their vacation, That blood and cadaver dogs reacted in the aprtment , to items of clothing and to the hire car, that 2 items went missing after being photographed by the PJ ( blue bag and pink blanket) is gerry telling us the motive for her death? She wasn't perfect?
They have twins a boy and a girl, the perfect family set up, cute blonde babies, perfect for their social circle.
It is clear that Maddie didn't fit in, this is often heard by the subtle demeaning of the victim, which is unexpected in any missing child case from family. We know she was demanding, had a temper, had a coloboma and interestingly enough that kate thought Maddie would turn out just like her.
If Maddie who we know wasn't perfect does this mean kate isn't perfect?
kate talked not only about suicide, she talked about pressing a button so they would ALL be togeather, in other words contemplating killing the twins and gerry ( justifiable homicide) and herself.
Think about this though.
The key word here is ALL.
Given they have banged on about no evidence she has come to serious harm ( what is their definition of serious harm is daily rape and abuse isn't it)
All means everthing, her words only make sense if she knows Maddie is dead, it is the only way they can all be togeather, otherwise, she has murdered 2 children and gerry and herself and left Maddie an orphan.
The show last night did not expain away the reactions of the dogs, brought in by the UK police, the changing timelines and checks,the refusal to answer 48 questions, the unwakeable twins, the non trip to the hospital to have the twins tested for drugs or worse, in fact, pretty much every contradiction that the public including coppers and ex coppers, criminal profilers, forensic linguists and statement analysts have picked up and questioned.
The programme didn't and couldn't say there was an abduction because there wasn't.
There was a whacking big nelliphant in the room saying dead Madeleine and they desperately tried to disguise it with a throw and a lets look real close at the Smith sighting (a sighting which the mccanns ignored until they were forced to acknowledge it and even then it was minimised)
I shall be calling them with some statement analysis on their statements, i may or may not mention he looks like gerry whereupon the phone will be slammed down on me.
Hi Pat,
I just wanted to let you know that I respect your work. I agree with everything you say, because I've read all the files myself.
And to support all of you people in britain,I can let you know that the majority of the dutch people (I'm from the Netherlands) think that the McCanns know more and simply won't tell.
And this you must know, I've spoken to the greatest crime journalist from Holland and Emmy award winner, and he thinks exactly the same thing.
What I really hope is that someone can infiltrate and let us know which things are discussed between the McCanns, between the McCanns and the police, between the McCanns and other high placed people.
That would be really great. Get hidden cameras and microphones in and simply listen what they have to say.
It is time for these things, because they wouldn't tell us either.
Again Pat, thanks for your work and let's hope the truth will come out.
Jane Tanner was lying for a reason, they tried to blame Mr Murat for everything. The man Jane allegedly saw walked towards the Murat house. The plan they had did not work out and now that strange things happened over the past few months regarding that Murat property they want to draw the attention away from it. I wonder why? After 6 years the main suspect is not the man Jane saw anymore it is now the Smith familys sighting....very strange.
It's all such terrible sham. Absolutely shocking. Scotland Yard are repeatedly alluded to as "the finest" force in the world yet here they are behaving like third world bumbling idiots for a bit of cheap publicity. Embarrassing.
Josh
Commander Crabb, Princess Diana, Jill Dando, David Kelly - I'm not confident I've heard the full truths of any of their deaths. Sadly Maddie is not unique, and in all cases the leads that are left hanging are crying out to be tied up with Government string. The COI taught me 'It's not who you know that gets you on, but what you've got on who you know.' The McCann PR campaign has been managed by a former COI employee.....
I am one of those people that believe Madeleine died in the apartment and that the Smith sighting was the closest to truth that we were going to get. When I realized SY were prioritizing the Smith sighting I had hopes for the investigation.
Unfortunately, as you have indicated, I think it is false hope and that a whitewash is in progress.
I do not fully understand the reasons why they would do this. Perhaps they have been instructed to 'save political face,' or perhaps they feel they will not be able to gain the evidence against the parents after so long, or that the results would be too shocking for the public to accept
Either way I am really perplexed as to why these parents seem to be above justice. The new reconstruction is a travesty.
Hi Pat, You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what will happen someone will come forward and identify himself as the Smith sighting. Scotland Yard's mission will be complete.
The objective of this review / investigation which started a couple of years ago was to devalue the Portuguese case files. This outrageous endeavour would have never been undertaken if the files hadn't been placed online. The PR campaign all started with Mr.Leveson when he referred to the files as "fluff."
From what I have been told about Portuguese law, in order to prove libel you must not only prove that what what was written is false but you must prove that the person responsible actually knew that it was false. Something very difficult to accomplish as Mr. Amaral found out when he tried to sue that nutty lawyer Mr. Correia for libel for a very small symbolic amount. He was unsuccessful. So, even if Scotland Yard were to parade in the public their chosen abductor theoretically it shouldn't make any difference in the outcome of the trial.
Let's not forget that the issues that are being covered in this trial were addressed by the Lisbon Appellate court which overturned the decision to ban the book. The Supreme Court later rejected the McCann's appeal. When that happened team McCann knew that they had little chance of winning the libel trial. That is why they tried to intimidate Mr. Amaral into settling out of court. He refused but they decided to go ahead anyways in the hope that they would get a judge that could be easily influenced. This judge is not weak willed; she is a no nonsense person. Even if for some inexplicable reason the court were to rule against Mr. Amaral. It would be overturned on appeal.
Crimewash indeed, and Slimewatch.
Like Hobnob I was struck by GMcC's referrance to new born Madeleine as "almost perfect". The fact that parents made her a ward of court, immediately after she went missing secured the secrecy of all medical records. I have long suspected there was something physical, that she was born with, that caused Madeleine to be difficult to handle at times. Or that IVF may conceal something that should be looked at. Also look at the photographs that were chosen for marketing compared to some of the others. She looks so different in many of them. Then there was the " good marketing ploy" (to quote GMcC) of the eye. I would not like to speculate on what this can mean, any more than I want to refer again to the several photos issued of this little child in questionable poses.
I thought Kate McCann looked hellish last night and perhaps on tranquilisers. Between her own physical and mental health, the court case in Lisbon, and their latest rounds of interviews I wonder who it is that is providing care for the surviving children.
Hi Pat,
The lie is now too big.
Where the hell have the Tapas gang been when all these shows and reconstructions have been taking place. Why weren't they sitting around that table during last nights reconstruction? You know, helping their friends out.
This is simply too big too fail.
The similarities with what happened with the Jersey Child Abuse Cover-Up is a mirror image. This is how very powerful people with the help of their MSM friends spring into action.
In Jersey the first step was to undermine the lead investigator, Lenny Harper, denigrate him in the press and finally trash his investigation. By doing this you cast doubt into the minds of the general public. This is exactly what happened in the McCann case.
Don't be surprised about Redwood. We had Grawell and Warcup in Jersey. I nailed Gradwell with my investigations.
Redwood might just be a pawn who got sucked in for whatever reason. Today SY will know that they came out looking like total idiots when all they needed to do was have a very good hard long chat with the couple who were sitting down the corridor.
rs
Why don't they put a bug in Kate n Gerrys house...and see what they say to each other when no one is around?
I also thought it odd that the man carrying the child was walking in the wrong direction - yet they put that on the show as if nobody would notice that? I, personally, explain a lot of the inconsistencies of the group that night as being completely pickled - the waiters that said how much booze they drank, well it was enough to get more than one table full of people wasted.
When Gerry said that Madeleine was "almost perfectly formed" I and my son about dropped our jaws on the floor. WHO in the WORLD says that about their child : "almost perfectly formed"...geez.
The Paynes were not even mentioned by name in the Crimewash, sorry, Crimewatch! In the scenes showing the Tapas9 arriving at the diner table, the voice over says Kate and Gerry McCann are the first to arrive, then come Matt and Rachel Oldfield and Jane Tanner and partner, O'Brien. They are all referred to by their names, but when they show the Paynes and Dianne Webster arrival, we get a "then the remaining 3 people arrived"! Weird, considering that the Paynes are supposedly the McCanns best friends within the group and that David Payne was the one who organized the holiday and one would expect at least a mention to the famous Payne baby monitor, it was so much talked about, the reason why the Paynes were the only ones NOT checking on the kids, theirs or the others.
This makes me think that probably they can't be mentioned for legal reasons, one of the (in)famous super injunctions, a sinister british legal product...
On th subject of the man the SY photographed as being the "new" explanation for Tanner's Bundleman, the "innocent father" walking past the McCanns apartment, carrying his child back from the creche(but in the wrong direction, lol!), well, as soon as I saw it it rang alarm bells in my mind! I saw that before, I thought to myself, but where...? after some digging I found it! It's exactly like what is known as Gail Cooper's photo of what later become known as "Cooper's creepy man". You can see it here:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/175407/Madeleine-McCann-Is-this-the-man-who-snatched-her
"THIS is the sensational picture of a suspicious man on the beach which could lead to a breakthrough in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."
"Snapped inadvertently in the background of a holiday photo, the mysterious man strolls along after a rain shower, staring out to sea at Praia da Luz."
"The picture was taken at the Portuguese resort days before Madeleine, then three, vanished during the evening of May 3, 2007."
"Briton Gail Cooper was having lunch with family and friends in a beachside cafe and taking photos when she saw him wandering along the beach, apparently in a world of his own."
"“It was odd to see him walking around the beach alone in showery, cold weather.” she said."
"Mrs Cooper, 53, added that a few hours after the snap was taken, the same man visited her at her rented villa 20 minutes’ walk from the beach. The £2million holiday property was in a quiet road near the Mark Warner complex where Madeleine and her family were staying."
"However, he does appear to bear a resemblance to a man the McCanns’ friend, Jane Tanner, saw walking with a child in his arms at about the time Madeleine disappeared."
See for yourselves, exactly the same clothes, blue jacket, white/beije trousers, the same dark hair, the same posture and built! I'm not mad, am I?! It could be the same man!
I also remember that at the time this first appeared in the media, people started to say it looked like Gerry McCann, and fitted the description of the Smiths!
In Crimewatch show it is seen at around 18:13'
In the Crimewatch video, at 3:31', they show what is supposed to represent the McCanns, Madeleine and the twins when they arrived in Luz, walking around on an Ocean Club's lane. Madeleine is jumping around, in front of the parents, who are PUSHING THE TWINS IN A DOUBLE BUGGY!!! The buggy they said they did not have, and that was one of the reasons they didn't want to have diner at the Millenium restaurant, it was too far away for the twins to walk, too tiring!
Excellent start...
It is said that of the 37 strong SY team, 6 of those are portuguese PJ officers. I wonder what their role is in this investigation, what they make of all this charade, how do they play along with it?! It must be really hard to swallow the whitewash!
Have the Mcaans/friends
who dined with them, been made to take a lie detecter test,
does anyone know?
I wonder when the Gaspar Statements will see the light of day?
I am amazed these haven't surfaced at all, especially after the Savile scandal.
Also Pat, I'm so sorry to hear about your poor cat. It's lovely that your fur baby has you close by for comfort
Good morning Pat, Thanks for the interesting feedback. I always thought that 1st world countries must be just as corrupt as our 3rd world countries, I thought they are just more clever to hide it. Even though I have these thoughts in the back of my mind, I still can't help to be shocked. How do people with no integrity & honesty live with themselves and their conscience?
Have a great day.
From the southern tip of darkest Africa... (now let's not argue about who's the darkest, it's no contest :-))
One must remember the government remit issued to Scotland Yard by the British Home Office is to investigate an ABDUCTION. This remit, namely Operation Grange, is flawed from it's inception as the presumption is Abduction. Explains why Mr Redwood fails to mention any vital evidence such as the blood and cadaver dogs. A WORD document of this short and sweet Operation Grange remit can be found on this government link:
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist or maybe I'm deluded but I don't see recent events as a further whitewash so much as the white being washed off. Since the original cover ups we have had a change of Govt, all sorts of hierarchies have been reshuffled and funding has been removed from certain areas and diverted into others. Madeleine, of course, during the last 6 years has never shown up and there has never been a credible lead suggested by any of the McC's numerous appointed detectives. Time is eroding their credibility along with everything else people mention here. Public opinion has shifted. People no longer believe what they are told and presented with by people in authority or broadaster, the Saville case has shaken everyone to the core when it comes to the shady behaviour of public figures, the BBC, the police etc. There has been the MPs expenses scandal. We have had massive riots across the UK as a result of the Mark Duggan shooting. The News of the World has been forced to close after the phone-tapping scandal. We have seen countless scandals of severely abused tiny children killed at the hands of their own parents and 'failed by the system' - Baby P, Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka. Public confidence and belief in the 'appearance of things' has never been so low! Things aren't what they used to be 6 yrs ago. Gerry looks as shifty as he ever did, Kate looks near-dead. They trip themselves and each other up in interviews.
Regardless of whether the net is genuinely 'closing in' on the McCs, it must surely FEEL like that to them, or leastways Gerry. There has been no haste on behalf of UK detectives to push this case faster if they believe, as I do, that Madeleine is alread dead and disposed of at the hands of her parents. It's not as if they are likely to reoffend (with the exception of possible murder-suicide of their twins which is clearly a high risk in light of what Kate said in fact they should be removed for safety).
The cracks are appearing. If nothing else, that woman is a woman on the edge of severe mental breakdown. Also, were the NOTW not hacking the McCann's phones? They were hacking everyone elses!
Anonymous, you are correct that the review was flawed from the start if they were told to investigate an abduction. But, if they were properly reviewing the case, they would not allow that demand to be satisfied. I have always told police departments when I come in to profile a case, I don't want to hear their theories. I want to see the evidence and base my conclusions on that. Sometimes I come up with the exact same theory; other times a very different one. I don't profile to support a police department's conclusion; I profile to help develop the case.
Anonymous, I agree the McCanns look worse than I have ever seen them before. I am not sure that has anything to do with the Met's review. It could be something else entirely. Kate McCann, who I have always thought was quite beautiful, is suddenly looking very gaunt and tired. We all age and don't look lovely as we once did and we can easily have bad photo days or look like crap on video due to lighting and bad hair and makeup, but Kate looks like this in many shots recently. She looks defeated. It could be due to the case in review or it could be due to something like guilt that won't diminish, or Gerry could be having an affair. She could be using drugs or medicines or she could have cancer. We don't know at this time. Certainly, I did not see either of them have much enthusiasm during this program.
Health & Kate she is not ill - she is typical of a long distance runner \ jogger, not an ounce of flesh and looks gaunt. Running off the ounces, keeping the weight off, bla bla But excellent energy levels. So eats exactly what she knows she needs.
Next up, not drugs. Probably some botox in the face, no movement, no expression. Totally expressionless, hence the appearance of depression. But wouldn't rule depression out, except, back to the long distance run you have to have motivation to do that.
And probably, as a women of a certain age, could also be menopausal.
There have been some charming & quite pretty photographs over the years. These last few weeks, she certainly hasn't been looking good.
There pattern of behaviour to loss seems to be the reverse of anything you would expect. Peak at first with gradual adjustment\acceptance, as with a bereavement.
See Kubler-Ross Grief Cycle
Great work Pat, you know how to cut through the bull..
Just read your book - I thought you presented a compelling case.
Here in Adelaide, Australia, we have had two infamous cases. Three children were abducted from the beach in 1966 and then in 1973 two more children were abducted from a sporting stadium.
I have researched but cant find too many cases of multiple abductions.
Keep up the great work
I just don't buy into it being the McCanns at all. I may be showing naivety but to me the proposition that it is them is pretty much inconceivable.
If it is the McCann's, the suggestion is that they have purposely (motive unclear) or inadvertently murdered their daughter and then hatched an almost perfect escape plan. All this in an environment that is pretty much alien to them, in a legal system of which they have very limited or no prior knowledge and ultimately under the watchful eye of the worlds media.
To do this they would need all of those with them at the resort onside and all of them to remain onside, essentially forever. One slip or weak moment by any one of them and the whole plot falls apart.
How have they, in an holiday resort with which they are unfamiliar so successfully disposed of the body so as to leave barely a trace?
How have they convinced all of their friends that what they were doing was right or are we suggesting they are innocent stooges?If so, an even more remarkable feat.
Why do they continue to court the attention if they know that ultimately the ongoing publicity could eventually "out" them or are they that convinced that their plan is absolutely perfect?
Also the suggestion that Andy Redwood and NSY are now part of the conspiracy is simply preposterous.
I think recent events within the UK have shown that the media and the law are no longer respectors of reputations and ultimately nobody is above the law. Why on earth would a couple of doctors from Rothley receive such protection?
If NSY have enough evidence to nail the McCann's I am certain that they will. They have nothing at all to gain from not doing.
Why did Mrs McCann admitted Madeleine was crying for her the night before in vain?
They cannot be interested that the police know the checks were insufficient?
I mean the night before Madeleine disappeared...
What has this week achieved. Tanner and Oldfield can sleep soundly in their beds and no longer dangle flapping in the breeze, of it could never have happened that day.
Had they all co-operated with the police forensic reconstruction, this would have been proven six years ago.
What of their relationship with the DIY investigation Can Tanner ever forgive her friends for setting her on in the limelight of the Panorama interviews, flashed around the world.
But nothing changes, so now everyone knows and believes what we have agonised over for six years the Smith family sighting and Mr Smiths exactly subsequent observations.
THERE IT IS. That's it.
Nothing changes, whether it was the sighting Tanner @9.25 or Smiths @ 10 Madeleine remains missing. Because there is no what happened next
Just another list of unanswered questions and observations.
It must have been a person with no transport? Planned\unplanned?
puddleduck
My question is why is it a concern that the bedroom door was in a different position during checks? Why would they not just think she got out of bed to use the bathroom or had a wander around? Perfectly reasonable possibilities unless she was tied to the bed or sedated.
I think SY are being much smarter than they are being given credit for here.
These investigations always start with a ground zero approach and from the family's perspective. We've seen the damning statement from Martin Smith and I just feel that they are trying to get some corroboration on this.
As an American, we hear very little about the McCann case any more, except for the updated "secret" information, which, I think, will amount to zero. I have thoroughly read your comments and they fit with my beliefs from the very beginning of the case. I cannot understand WHY these parents have not been prosecuted for child neglect, at the very least. It is illegal in the US to leave young children alone - even if you are visiting neighbors next door - much less to be away having drinks and dinner. The bottom line to the whole matter is this - THE PARENTS ARE TO BLAME - whether she was abducted by a stranger or the McCann's did something to her - the blame rests squarely on their shoulders. If they had been responsible parents; this little child would be alive today. Perhaps they will try to prosecute ME for my opinions!!
hi pat fantastic work u have done on this case. it is a total joke it just amazes me that sy think the british public are so thick. its just insulting to the people of this country to try and make us believe all this convaluted tripe. Why has there been no lie detector test on anyone thats the biggest pointer to who is guilty because that is one thing u woild do if u were innocent to clear your name and stop all the accusations. you would do it to prove people wrong so why dont they why put up with people hating them u wouldnt that is why they are all as guilty as hell!!
Hi everyone.
I'm a typical Brit when it comes to this case, I know the bare story and felt that the girl had been abducted. So I watched Panorama and learned quite a bit. The effect on me as an averagely interested viewer was that the reconstruction threw the McCanns right back as main suspects. If the Tanner sighting is set aside then the parent's are more likely to be guilty. It's a question of time. I didn't realise that between 9.05 and 10 the children were effectively alone, it seems more than likely that noone looked in on them. This is startling neglect. It also creates more unaccounted for time. More time unaccounted for makes it more probable to me that Madeline died earlier that evening in the apartment and the comings and goings at the Tapas bar was grim theatre, an appearance of normality by the parents. I just felt that the whole show made the Mccanns the more likely suspects. In fact that's how I found this blog because I researched the case on the basis of the parents being more likely to have been involved because abduction looked less likely. As for the second sighting I don't think an abductor will run around carrying a child in the streets looking like a boogeyman child snatcher. As Mr Average, who I guess the programme was meant to appeal to the effect was to make me believe less the abduction theory and more inclined to the idea the child died in the apartment and it's the two sniffer dogs who cracked the case but unfortunately politics and money keep the rest of us off their scent.
The Mccann used to dismiss the Smith sighting. And when the was compelled,once,to answer about it,
Kate says: every sighting in this night of a man carrying a child is important, because this proves that there was an abduction. Really?
There is a popular saying:
GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGHT IN TWISTED LINES.
The bottom line from all this circus, in my humble feeling,
is that we have in the middle of the sight a man carrying a girl
toward the shore and an identikit
very similar to Gerry.
Let's wait and see.
God bless you Pat for all.
And mainly for your love to the animals.
I bless you to.
The question I asked was: "Why did Scotland Yard get involved in this "review" in the first place?"
Reputation management on behalf of the McCanns is the correct answer. We all know that but; how on Earth was this possible?
Because Scotland Yard MUST do what they are asked to do by The Government! Their role here is to obey orders and do the PR.
But why did The Government do that?
Good question.
Let us start by asking (for example):
Who is David Cameron connected with?
For a start the British PM is well connected with Clarence Micthell - the McCanns' spokesperson who directs Burson-Marsteller: a global PR and reputation management agency with "69 offices and 80 affiliate offices, operating in 107 countries across six continents.".
Also, in case you did not know, Clarence Mitchell (once close to Labour leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) is now a candidate MP for the Conservative Party (Brighton and Hove)in the next general elections.
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2013/07/Clarence_Mitchell_selected_for_Brighton_and_Hove.aspx
If the above is not enough to convince you, then think about former "Sun" newspaper editor and News International chief executive Rebekha Brooks.
Rebekha Brooks is married to Charlie Brooks - David Cameron chum since their adolescent days together at Eton College.
Rebekha is reported to have shared hundreds of "interesting" text messages with Cameron (...)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9654389/David-Cameron-should-publish-secret-messages-with-Rebekah-Brooks.html
Theoretically at least, it is the Sun newspaper open letter to David Cameron that triggers an independent review of Madeleine McCann's case and brings Scotland Yard into the PR stage of the affair. That much Mrs. Brooks admitted to the Leveson Inquiry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/9225991/David-Cameron-was-pressured-into-new-Madeleine-McCann-inquiry-by-News-International.html
If you are not convinced about the Mitchell - News International-Cameron - Scotland Yard connection then consider the following:
After leaving his job as chief of the Media Monitoring Unit of the British government (under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) to work for the McCanns and, presumably, further his career as a PR man (he called Medeleine's case "the perfect storm") Mitchell works for Freud Communications (more PR).
Freud Communications is owned by Matthew Freud who is married with Elizabeth Murdoch - daughter of Rupert Murdoch of News International fame (think Rebekha Brooks-Cameron gain).
Small world, right? If you really would like to go into this than I suggest you research the subject of the Chipping North Set, starting here for example. See Wikipedia also.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013040/News-World-Rebekah-Brooks-David-Cameron-Chipping-Norton-set.html
To cut a long comment short. This PR campaign is closely linked with the on-going "defamation" trial in the Palace of Justice in Lisbon. It is a bid to try and influence the judge towards the McCanns' "plight" and "do them justice".
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/10/new-image-suspect-be-released-madeleine-mccann-case
That failing, as it is bound to, Scotland Yard's "review" will come handy at a later date to try and influence the judge at The European Court of Human Rights. The McCanns' will appeal if they loose with Amaral. You know that too...
Oh! Nearly forgot! "Gerry McCann worked in a committee* for the Government which analysed the impact of Nuclear plants in the environment, at a time when Tony Blair was the prime minister.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/mccanns-links-to-government-as-origin.html
I could go on but this will suffice.
P.J. Tipps
PS Pat, I am looking forward to reading that DEFINITIVE book on the case you promised to write in collaboration with G. Amaral. I suppose a lot of people are.
Hallo Pat Brown,
Best wishes from germany. Please feel free to correct my spelling and grammar.
There are new suspects:
http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/maddie-mccann/neue-polizei-ermittlungen-wissen-diese-sex-killer-wo-maddie-ist-33053904.bild.html
Really good suspects, arent they? Don't they look like the e-fits? That these guys prefer boys from an age of 6 - don't mind! That their modus operandi was quite different from intruding in a flat/an apartment - don't mind! We need suspects! We can't have enough of them... Many many suspects for the fog! In Germany we call this "Nebelkerzen werfen" (throwing smoke grenades).
I have more suspects. A couple. As we learned by Kate McCann it could also have done by a couple. You, Pat, you and Goncalo Amaral! You are suspicious. Where have you been at the 3rd may 2007? Tell me quickly! Confess, confess!
Suspects! Gimme suspects, gimme more!
Sorry for my bad irony, but this is just ridiculous. E-Fits after 6 years? e-Fits from 2008, which haven't been published for years? tanner-sighting suddenly irrelevant? Smith-sighting suddenly important? Next time the Brooke-sighting will raise up...
Best wishes from germany
and don't mention the war ;-)
OFF TOPIC:
Pat-
Do you have any commentary on Hannah Anderson's kidnap story? I appreciate your insights very much! Wish you would get back on BlogTalk Radio :)
Steph
Congratulations on your efforts.
Key points:
- in the "truth of the lie" TVI documentary, the re-enacting of the Smiths' sighting shows a running carrier of the child; has this been established of is it just dramatization? It is significant if the person carrying the child was running or not.
- Mr.Amaral, in the same documentary, and contrary to his general serious posture, states that he is going to "prove" what happened to Maddie, instead of simply presenting the facts and their plausible interpretation.
- since the odds of all the bunch at tapas that night being psycopaths are quite low, they should all, and I mean all, come forward and subject themselves to every state-of-the-art lie detector test, to establish their innocence once and for all, thus letting all the efforts concentrate on the abduction thesis. If they don't or won't, then probably the answer is and has always been among them.
Best regards.
Is your book based on Amarals?
www.theharlowsceptic.weebly.com
I have followed this case from day one and allways sat on the fence regarding as to what happend.
Do you remember John Haigue? yes , silly question to ask, Did'nt John Haigh think that a body was needed to prove murder?
What I am getting at, Gerry McCann said words to that effect, Something along the lines of "Find her body and prove we murdered her" That swayed me to the fact That they had something to do with what happend that day/night. Anyway, any loving father would have said find my daughter, not find her body.
Oh and I dont know if you disagree with what I am going to say next but here goes.
The way the British goverment and the police are diverting everything away from the McCanns one would think they are covering up for something.
News breaking in the UK saying that the case has been re-opened in Portugal!
Puddleduck, the bbc sell their programs all over the world. Its not just the tax of £145 that they have comming in,
It's been a strange few days. The Express in the Uk released the original statement of the Smiths who stated their sighting had brown hair not the greying hair in the Panorama reconstruction. Kate told the Sun that Madeline was perfect when she was born, correcting by default the 'almost perfect' reference in the post reconstruction interview by her husband. Now the Portugese are all in on the reopening and British TV is gloating at the fine job by plods at the yard. One day everyone acts like she's alive but talks like she's dead then at the next news cycle it's all reversed. There are disconnects everywhere. This has to be the strangest case in history. Surely the first thing first logic of all this is for someone, English Portugese or Martian, doesn't matter to tell us if this is a murder inquiry or a hunt for an abducted child. It can't be both. Until then this remains a crazy, postmodern, media driven cross border barrel of snakes.
Crimewatch is not a documentary though like Panorama. The purpose of the reconstruction was to appeal for new witnesses. For now, any evidence the police already know about is irrelevant.
Concluding rightly that SY is lying, doesn't mean it's lying not to solve the case. If lies are needed to get actual suspects, not named as suspects, feeling safe, and to get them coöperate, I just hope SY will succeed in the effort.
In the meantime the parents are trying to get the finger in between the Portugese investigation I read today, by bidding for access to current police files.
You were right!!
Post a Comment