Saturday, November 2, 2013

"I Knew Straight Away She'd been Taken." - Kate McCann

I have already discussed the biggest behavioral red flag in the missing Madeleine McCann case, that of the McCanns playing down the Smith sighting of a man carrying a little girl toward the beach at 10 pm. I have also discussed the odd statement of Gerry's to relatives after Maddie went missing, "It's a disaster!" But, since watching Crimewatch with Kate relating the events of that evening, I am nagged by the another big red behavioral flag in this case, the description of the open window and whooshing curtains in the children's bedroom and her statement, "I knew straight away she'd been taken."

Let's put aside the evidence which does not support the window actually being open and imagine that Kate really found it that way. Imagine you are Kate and you have walked into the bedroom, seen the twins asleep but your daughter missing. You get confused and you check the house for her. Then you go back in the bedroom and the curtains whoosh and you see the window is wide open. You know your child has been unattended for at least 30 minutes (if we are believing the Oldfield check in which he actually doesn't say he saw Maddie but Kate thinks he has) and that the bedroom Maddie is in is on the ground floor right alongside the street and a parking area. The curtains whoosh and you realize that the window has been opened, not by you, not by your children (I stayed in a similar apartment in the complex and it takes a bit of work to open the window so I am sure Kate knew that Maddie did not do it), but by SOMEONE. SOMEONE opened the window and likely that SOMEONE has your missing child!! What would you do next?

The first thing Kate does is look around the house AGAIN. Okay, maybe in her confusion and last hope she might do that. Maybe the guy is inside with the child, maybe your child got scared and hid and the guy ran away, maybe you are imagining the window was opened by someone else and your child is in really secreted somewhere in the house. I get that this is a possible reaction. So you look everywhere, everywhere, except behind the sofa.

It is the next action that strikes me as bizarre. Kate runs off to the Tapas restaurants to tell everyone that Maddie is gone and someone had taken her.

Again, I ask what would you do next if you thought someone had grabbed your child from her bed possibly a minute ago? I think if it were me, I would run out my front door screaming her name, running into the parking area to see if someone is putting her into a vehicle, running into the street to see if someone is carrying her off somewhere, screaming her name, hoping she will scream back, hoping someone might take notice of me screaming her name and wonder about some man hurrying by carrying a little girl. I would be screaming, "Help! Help! Someone has taken my child! Maddie! Maddie!" I would be hysterical, standing even in a deserted street screaming and crying, hoping someone will rush out, someone will look out their windows, that some police officer might pop up! Then, I might run to the Tapas restaurant, screaming all the way, "Maddie! Maddie! I would scream to raise the dead on the way to get more help,

But, that is not what happened. Kate did her check in the house and then went straight down to the restaurant. She does not even describe in her book looking for Maddie as she does so. It is not until after Kate raises the alarm and supposedly seven of the Tapas 9 return from the restaurant that Kate finally runs out into the car park screaming, "Maddie! Maddie!"

Some will say I am nitpicking here, that Kate might well have run straight to her friends because she was seeking help. That she was in shock which is why it took so long for her to look for Maddie outside the apartment and why she doesn't even mention scanning the area for her child on her way to the restaurant.

Maybe, but I don't think that is what the story is telling us. I think we are finding out about what happened between 9:15 and 10 pm. More and more I believe Gerry found out that Maddie was not in bed during his check and when he didn't get back to the table quickly, when Kate made that remark about Gerry getting distracted watching the footy on the television, she went with Oldfield to find out what was taking him so long. When she got there, Gerry may have already been in a panic trying to find Maddie. Kate and Oldfield join in, and they finally find her behind the sofa. There is a short period of shock, horror, and panic, Kate cuddling her daughter, and then the decision is made to take Maddie from the flat, that Gerry will do this and Kate will raise the alarm.

There are those who every time I write a blog making one particular point go crazy and then spread tales that I am basing my theory of the McCanns' possible guilt on one behavior alone. This is not so. In my blogs, at this point in time, I am merely bringing up points of interest, behaviors and other information that lends to the whole picture. I have already written a book on the case and written numerous blogs making dozens and dozens of points which lend to my final analysis. After I wrote my book, I went to Praia da Luz and saw the area and flat firsthand. When I came back I wrote blogs about what I found out and what of my analysis needs to be updated with the new information. There is always updating to do as time goes by and more information comes in. I have adjusted some of my thoughts but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the likelihood of the McCanns' complicity in the demise, yes, demise of their child. Right now we have the media going on and on ad nauseum about some Cape-Verdian guy who happened to work for the same company that runs the vacation rentals were the McCanns stayed and whose phone pinged somewhere in the vicinity (how close a vicinity we do not yet know) supposedly on the evening she went missing. Of course, he actually didn't work at the complex, had never been seen near the apartment, and lived only fifteen minutes away, but somehow he is now a major suspect. With those not-very-damning bits of info , there is not much of anything to build a picture of a man who should be a top suspect in abducting Maddie. But, there are many, many reasons to look at the McCanns' involvement in their daughter's disappearance; there are many peculiar behaviors on the part of the McCanns to build that picture of possible guilt along with the physical evidence in their rental flat and their rental vehicle that points in the same direction.

With the media telling many a tall tale about this suspect and that, with the media not questioning the McCanns' bizarre behaviors - like not making public the e-fits of the Smith sighting five years ago when their PIs handed them the pictures (and even threatening them with a lawsuit if they released them to the police or public) - or bringing up the physical evidence that points to Maddie dying in the apartment and her body being moved in the rental car, I feel we must all, for a time, keep alive the other side of the picture - that there are many people - police officers, detectives, criminologists, profilers, lawyers, and citizens - all who think the evidence strongly points to the McCanns as being involved in Maddie's death and disappearance and these folks would like to see the Metropolitan Police and the PJ make the McCanns one of their avenues of investigation even if they believe abduction is still a possibility. I see nothing unreasonable in this, do you?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 2, 2013

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.

By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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.


Anonymous said...

Hello Pat
I have spent some time in recent weeks reading about this case.In doing so, I am having great difficulty understanding how and why the situation is as it is today.I fail to understand why what would I'd expect to be important is deemed not so in this case which has captured worldwide attention.
All the while there are so many missing children around the world including in the UK .The heartbreaking life and death of Daniel Pelka in the UK is tragic.The evidence which showed his life of abuse seems to have been ignored.Ignored at great pains to the child and eventually his life.Why is evidence ignored?
On your opinion about reactions on finding a missing child.I acted similarly to what you are saying.While I was hanging up the laundry I lost sight of my little one.Thinking she had just wandered off I went looking around everywhere the more I looked and couldn't find her the more panicked and louder I became.The pool was a concern when they were little.One of the first things I did was check the pool.The gate was closed.I still checked.I was hysterical after checking everywhere I could think to look.It had only been minutes and for that reason I did worry about someone grabbing her from our yard.I had heard cars go past.If we had people living anywhere near us they would have heard me.I called the Police emergency number in hysterics.They tried to calm me down.I got angry with that and demanded they come was during this call that my daughter came out of hiding with a timid cheeky grin on her face.Don't cry Mummy she said.

Anonymous said...

The public were told and heard the message "They've taken her".

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous at 11:09

First, why are cases ignored. Well, certain cases don't get attention because there is not enough drama. Either the victim isn't of enough interest to the public or the story is not full of twists and turns or it is solved and over, no mystery left. In the McCann case, every element is there for fascination. I have to admit, it is the most peculiar and fascinating case I have ever encountered and many of us persist in wanting to find the truth because we have invested so much energy in trying to uncover it and because we want to know the answer to the puzzle. And, speaking for myself, I want to see the truth come out so that be have proper information for use with future handling of missing childrens' cases and use of limited funds.

As to kids going missing and reaction, humans tend to use their voices in attempting to recover their children. Silence is a terribly odd reaction. Silence is more aligned with grief - that there is no point in speaking because it is over, maybe quietly wailing their name in pain or in a belated effort to call them back from the dead, but not shouting it directionally like you would if thought they might really hear you. On the other hand, when one believes their child is alive and is trying to find them, yelling their name is almost always the method used even if you fear they are a mile away. Heck, I had hope my cat was alive so I went around yelling his name all over my yard and down around the block. I would hope if I thought my child might be in hearing range, I would at least attempt to call out to her. Why didn't Kate?

Julie Moon said...

When a mommy's baby or toddler, (or even in some cases an older child), is not where you left them, the first thing mommy does is start to call for them, yell for them, scream for them. Hollering at the top of their lungs for their child, where are you? answer me!! Screaming as they are checking under the bed, in the closet, behind the shower curtain, wherever they might be (hopefully) just hiding!

It's not nit picking, Pat, it's the plain and simple truth. When a kid goes missing the parent calls out to the child!! Immediately!!

And seriously, if you KNEW your child had been taken?? C'mon, after screaming through the house and not finding her, 911 on the cell, and then go screaming out into the parking lot and over to the restaurant.

Pat Brown said...

Julie, excellent observation about calling for them IN the house. I just reread Kate's book and never does she say as she
"scours" the house that she called for Madeleine. Odd, eh? Maybe, actually, Gerry had already done that and had found her.

Anonymous said...

Pat, thanks for your reply.I don't have a lot of time just now.After reading the book I'm wondering if you would think a fight between some of the men is possible due to some friction between them?
The blood seems to be splashed on the wall.Children do sometimes be on the receiving end of innocent arm and hand movements when people don't know that they are near them.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous at 1:04


Anonymous said...

Even more strange is the fact that not only did she never search for her missing child when she left the apartment convinced that Maddie had been taken and walked the 5 minutes to the Tapas Bar that was behind the pool and not visible from 5A she left the twins alone in it!!!

If you think someone has taken your child and we were NEVER allowed to think for a moment that she may have wandered off why would you then leave other children alone would you not as Pat said scream from the balcony or at the very least scoop them up and take them with you in case the abductor was hiding near by waiting to come back for them?

Once more the window was never open only Kate's prints on the inside the lichen was not disturbed and they had to come up with leaving the door unlocked to give access to the abductor....

Anonymous said...

Truly fascinating case. Now you are placing Oldfield into the picture, Pat. But is it really possible that the T7 are at least partly in the know? I think faking an abduction is one thing but staying silent while different people are becoming suspects (or in the case of Murat even framing them) of a horrendous crime surely is a totally different matter. If the T7 know that there has never been an abductor why do they not at least tell K+G to shut up?

Anonymous said...

As amaral has stated his fears on this being about politics and history im nt surprised. They thought they were innocent in the early days but hw can they bck out nw. Reading his account of those months he was involved,i feel many things,anger,that he has been discredited like this after he did his best and was getting to the point we r at nw..the smith sighting! The british police that agreed with amaral when they were working on the case wth him should be ashamed of themselves for nt speaking out. As for forensics in uk...hw can they keep hair and samples amaral sent them and nt give him the results on those faith in our justice systemhas been broken! Pat browns words are some of our own words and i wish we were being heard

Anonymous said...

Of all the efits released since May 2007 there is not ONE efit of a black man, I haven't read any witness statement stating they saw a black man in the area .....
Recently Scotland Yard wanted to trace blonde haired men (German I think they said).
If someone had predicted that the next suspect was from Cape Verde - we would all have been laughing our socks off, but here we are. You couldn't make it up!

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Hi Pat, forgive me for posting here, but I wanted to have my two pennies worth on something and this post got taken down from an (anti-Mccann)internet forum I was on.

Lots of people have been accused of being Mccann haters, but for the record I'd like to say I feel quite sorry for them.

I've never quite understood the personal hatred that seems directed toward them (and I say that as someone who knows the frustration of being ill and having incompetent and indifferent doctors). I don't think Kate is particularly attractive to be honest and moreover if she is narcissistic, she's shy-narcisistic, and not annoyingly full-of-her-self narcisistic, in a way that might make me really hate her.

I also can't really understand the hate toward Gerry, who seems like a mid-life crisis kind of guy. Anna Andress suggested that Gerry was on the naughty step when he said, when on holiday, 'I'm not here to enjoy myself' and I think she was right. But actually I feel quite sympathetic to him in this respect.

It strikes me that maybe Kate was culpable for Maddie's death and that Gerry was instrumental in the cover up. In that light Gerry could well be seen as the good guy, saving his wife and family (whilst accepting that Maddie was dead and that the clock couldn't be turned back.) This might explain why Gerry always appears to be a sure liar: he's lying for a greater truth and therefore feels morally justified. Kate on the other hand always strikes me as a guilty liar. Moreover she can't hand herself in now, because that would put Gerry, the man who saved her, in the frame too. (Possibly, maybe)

Anyway I feel sorry for them and I bet they wish, night after night, that they could only turn back time.

Of course one caveat to that is the million dollar question, why are the Mccanns so important; and maybe the answer to that question could render any sympathy toward the couple misguided.

PS. I know they've ruined a lot of good people and banned your book Pat, and I personally would be angry for that (though I'm not suggesting you are!); but maybe they just got caught up in a lie which kept getting bigger and bigger; and I mean let's face it, after a ceratin point of no return had been reached, they could hardly own up and admit their guilt, forcing them to push on with the lie.

Anonymous said...

Thomas makes a good point and normally I too would feel sorry for them. But they have ruined so many other lives, with their spite and hatred and greed, that I just can't. And they're still doing it, and still mewling away that they did nothing wrong. "He deserves hatred, he deserves to feel fear." That is Kate's opinion of the senior policeman in charge of trying to find out what happened to her child. It's all right there in her big book of fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

Thomas also, you have to bear in mind (if this is a situation of accidental death and husband helping the cover up) they have also taken money from people to 'help the search' for their daughter. If you had donated, say £200, of your own hard earned money, how would you feel? I could not feel sorry for them - this is calculated. How many millions of pounds spent, how many hours of peoples lives used to search for a child who will never be found. If they know what happened to their daughter they have lied to the WHOLE world, they would not deserve sympathy when all they had to do was take responsibility for their actions, like any decent adult would do. If they are guilty they have to be held accountable, they make sure everyone else is accountable for their actions, taking legal action left, right and centre. And if this is all off the back of a lie, it is despicable. Sorry, no sympathy whatsoever.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Anonymous 7.55 AM, I am aware of all the details of the case. It could well be -- given the bizarre politics of the case -- that something else more sinister is going on here, ergo you are right.

However, can you imagine how difficult it would be for them (if my scenario was true) to admit their guilt. I've said it before, but if the truth does eventually come out I can only see them joining hands and doing a Thelma and Louise over the cliff.

I think my point is that there is a lot of hatred toward the Mccanns which had nothing to do with the case, which to be honest I don't understand.

For example take Amanda Knox. Now I don't know enough to know if she was guilty or not. But I can understand why the public hated her so much. She seemed young, attractive, entitled and narcisistic, loving the media attention. I'm just not sure I get the same impression with the Mccanns. To me Kate looks on the verge of a stroke.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,
I love your posts and thank you for your ongoing insight into this case. It is truly a fascinating case (I rarely say that as I feel guilty saying it for obvious reasons) but this case has got it all, and I am hooked.
Re your latest post and the theory of them discovering Madeleine dead on 3rd. Would not the cadaver picked up next to the wardrobe make this unlikely? How long would Madeleine's body have needed to rest there for, to leave cadaver? Or could it just have been cadaver cross contamination? I tend to think M died before 3rd, that they found her behind the sofa and moved her next to the wardrobe, perhaps left her there inside GM bag :-(
I am not sure what to make of the Smith sighting.
Also do you think GM would have trusted KM to keep it together on 3rd...between them discovering her and reporting her missing, I feel like he might have needed to coach her, which is another reason I think 24 hours from discovery to crime reported seems more likely.
Interested to hear your thoughts. HR.

Anonymous said...

Thomas, I saw your post on the fb forum. I don't think it's fair to call that forum anti-mccann by the way. I didn't realise your post had been deleted, perhaps that was due to other comments made in the thread.
I had a moment of feeling sorry for the mccanns this week, but that swiftly passed! It's too soon to ask people to feel sorry for them perhaps Thomas. They are still ruining lives in order to protect their own, no doubt when the truth comes out and they do a Thelma and Louise (q possible) will people join you in feeling sorry for them. HR.

Anonymous said...

Pat, you wrote: "I just reread Kate's book and never does she say as she
"scours" the house that she called for Madeleine. Odd, eh? Maybe, actually, Gerry had already done that and had found her."

That reminds me of a witness, who says that when leaving the Tapas on May 3 evening, his wife thought she heard someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine" ... If this call came from within the apartment, that would count for her being a bit vague about it. IIRC the witness was Carpenter and they left Tapas at approx 9:15pm. I'll check and come back to correct, if necessary.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Well anonymous at 9.00, I think the post was removed because it was causing too much bickering, but I feel that was because the majority of people reacted badly to what I said.

I think it's important to allow posts like mine because it shows the group is not just an anti-mccann hate group who wants to paint them as the devils own daughters. I felt my post added a lot of credibility to the fact that the Mccanns are guilty.

I guess you're right though, sympathy should really be withheld until they are brought to justice and not before.

Anonymous said...

It was indeed Stephen Carpenter:
Rogatory statement April 21, 2008
“Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home”
“My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance".


Jud said...

Two references: Gerry: " we checked and double checked... before you raised the alarm'. Mccannfiles/Dr.Martin Roberts/2009/
30 May.
And, of course, "the night we found her". ( also Gerry )

Lesley said...

Interesting and possible. My thought about how I would have responded as a mother are as follows;
I would have shouted through the apartment her name....and then I would have stood on the balcony facing the Tapas Bar and screamed across for help.
The turning point,(a couple of years ago)for me,in thinking the McCanns were guilty was also related to Kate's behaviour.
Imagine this,you have reportedly had your child abducted by some predator,who may or may not have worked for the Ocean Club Complex,he or they(if there is a gang)may still be in the vicinity. You believe that you and your family have been 'watched' for the creche and back,to the beach and back...from apartment to creche.All this is Kate McCann's opinion?
So what do you put your other two children,the remaining twins back in the same Creche!!!AND YOU DO THIS THE DAY AFTER THE SUPPOSED ABDUCTION!
No bonded mother/father does that. After all the investigation at that time may suggest an employee or other visitor to the complex is involved and you physically separate yourself from your twins.No.not normal in any way,shape or form?At the very least you would arrange for a family member or close friend to have them.
However, if there has been NO abduction,then of course this is OK,there is no scary paedophile lurking in the shadows,the complex is wholly safe and always was in those terms..and the McCanns knew this.

Anonymous said...

Thomas. I didn't reply to your post in that forum, because I was conflicted in how I felt. Also I'm disillusioned with posting there, and the forum in general. I think it's an excellent support group for those new to the case, and that's it.
My personal beliefs are non judgment, let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc...I truly respect those brave enough to own their own mistakes, especially public..and honestly if the mccanns came forward tomorrow and confessed I would have compassion on them. Whilst they insist on continuing this farce, and ignoring the far reaching consequences of it on everyone involved..I just can't feel sorry for them.
I agree it was a lie that snowballed. However I think they have loved the media attention! Particularly GM, he adores it. They didn't have to go on Oprah, or Piers Morgan etc. HR.

Lesley said...

I just wanted to relate to something you said. Personally, I do not hate the McCanns, if anything I find them morbidly facinating but also wholly guilty.The reason this case intrigues me is for many of the reasons Pat suggests..'How did they do it?'
However, for me the fascination is also related to'How did they psychologically do it'(and live with it)
I believe them both to be Narcissists and this prevents me from feeling sorry for them. Narcissists are capable of feeling grief,despair,angst,great stress,depression and fear..but they feel this primarily in relation to themselves?
The primary indicator of Narcissism is Lack of Empathy.
So when you feel pity for the McCanns Thomas I believe you are responding with human emotion to a'display' of human emotion such as Kate's pained face.
I put to you that Kate's face will always be particularly pained when the spectre of truth creeps closer to her.She fears her liberty,the shame of being found out and being unmasked.She feels for herself...

Pat Brown said...

Thomas, I thought your question (and your points) were all so interesting that I wrote an entire blog post on it today. You can find it here:

But, I want to address one other thing about Amanda Knox and Kate McCann and far as behavior and looks go.

I think people don't trust Amanda Knox as far as they can throw her. Her behavior is creepy and she fingered an innocent man for the crime. It is not about here looks (she is attractive girl-next-door type to me) but her narcissism and careless behaviors and finger-pointing reek of psychopathy, enough psychopathy possible to be involved in the crime.

As to Kate, there may have been some jealousy on the part of anti-McCann folks as many of these are women of the same age. At the beginning of this whole saga, I would venture to say Kate is a beauty. I know many claim she is unattractive but I can't for the life of me see that. I consider her looks just lovely and I felt like making a charcoal drawing of her back in the early days. Now, she appears to have aged tremendously, is far underweight, may be on medication or have had a stroke. I was actually shocked by the way she looked recently and, in spite of my belief that the evidence point to the McCanns' involvement in Maddie's death and disappearance, I felt badly for her. We all age and have a bad hair or photo op day and, if you are in the public eye, there are photos and videos that come out with you looking just awful (I know; my haters put them up) but, truly, Kate does not just look older, she looks ill.

What could have happened to her? Is it six years of struggling to find your missing daughter and losing hope? Or is it six years of keeping up a lie and putting up with Gerry McCann telling you what to do or maybe the marriage is falling apart. Or maybe they are afraid something is going to happen to them, that someone is really on to them, that the jig is up. I don't know. Maybe we will find out soon.

Anonymous said...

I think Kate was stunning as well, back in the day. She has a classic look but I don't go with the "they're just jellus" argument because you hear it every time anyone doesn't like something someone else does - if not jealous of their looks, then of something else, and you hear it about people about whose lives and appearances are nothing that would make anyone jealous. In this case they may be resentful that someone who is middle class and attractive gets a pass on being also neglectful and dissembling and garnering attention for their child that children who are equally valuable do not get - because their parents aren't connected well off doctors. That's a legitimate complaint.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous at 11:26. I agree that the saying the big reason people don't like the McCanns because they are jealous of Kate's looks is ridiculous. I was merely pointing out that, since Thomas mentioned looks, there are a number of women of Kate's age who get really nasty about her looks and I do think some of that is fueled not only by the fact the she is a well-connected doc with money, but that she is, in fact, a very attractive woman. For some, that makes it easier to attack; for me, it is the opposite; I actually have to tell myself to reread the evidence because I think she is so pretty to look at. Gerry makes it easier for me because I think he looks like a weasel and some of the other female members of the clan or Tapas 9 are easier to dislike because they aren't particularly easy on the eye, but, Kate, until recently, had a rather stunning look, classic as you say, and I found that something I had to not allow to distract me. I had the same problem once when investigating a fellow in a sexual homicide; I saw him putting his baby into a car seat and he was so much the image of a loving father, I had to go straight home and reread all the evidence against him. Looks can be deceiving, helpful, damaging.... looks can sway many an emotion for a variety of reasons

Anonymous said...

Agree, Pat. (Anon 1126) While I know that attractive people commit crimes (look at Scott Peterson!)it can be a case where you have to force yourself past your own belief to look more closely. I don't have the "attractive people are given a pass" gene, myself, however I tend to feel that educated people do not commit violent crimes (stupid I know) and that hurt me here. My mother took one look at this situation and immediately said "the parents did this" whereas I thought no, surely not, they were doctors and would know what to do - they would not be stupid teenage HS drop out Casey Anthony types who think they can get away with this - but in fact Casey Anthony DID get away with it and her looks had quite a few people fooled - both she and Scott Peterson had offers of marriage while being held for and in his case convicted of crimes. They leveraged all the assets they had which in their case included the belief that doctors (smart, educated) and attractive people have sympathy or prejudice in their favor, especially in the press. A child from a poor family who is not a "blond angel" with attractive parents are shunted to the side in the press as they do not make such good stories, and that is down to all of us who are more interested in what happened to Caylee, Laci or Madeleine than in what happens to the many other children or people who go missing.

Anonymous said...

Gerry's look, and his narcissism in believing he was best in charge of the investigation did not help him; I recall one photo of him standing in front of a poster board writing on it "The Larger Agenda" where the entire thing - the look on his face, the concept that he was leading this campaign, the term wider agenda (when their Fund is totally private and has been used in highly objectionable ways) put people off. The papers also had described, or one "journalist" Tony parsons I believe, described the Portugese detective as a "sardine muncher" - certainly people's prejudice for blond thin white women vs dark portly men of another race came very much into play right across this case. Efit of Gerry look alike,? Ignore it. Efit of swarthy pimpled people - can't get enough of them.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Thanks Pat, Yes I think my sympathy is based on the fact that Kate looks quite ill, and at the end.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Anonymous at 10.36 am. Yes, I agree about the forum. The thing is I guess, is that it's better to have quantity rather than quality: this case needs a lot of people to get on board in order to bring the issue into the public eye; if that comes at the expense of rational debate, the I guess so be it.

I agree with you as well that it's hard to feel sorry for them since they've done so much harm; but then in every interview I've seen them in they've looked tense and under pressure, so at least IMO they don't look like they're enjoying the media attention.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Lesley I agree with you, the question of how they cope psychologically with this farce is very interesting. I have to confess I often have nightmares/visions and horrible thoughts in which I kill someone,in a fit of temper/madness and my life turns into utter hell. But I do not know what my response would be: half the time I think I would hand myself in and hang myself; then again maybe I would justify the crime to myself and cover things up to save my own bacon.

I will happily confess to being narcisistic and sociopathic and psychopathic myself (this might explain why I sympathise with them), in fact I believe I'm probably very much at the edge of the spectrum; but I'm also incredibly empathetic too. So that tells me that all these concepts of narcissim, sociopathy, lack of empathy are truly difficult for me to get my head around. When you talk about Kate I would personally go for a middle line: yes, she fears for her own personal being and no, I don't think she really cared about Madeleine; but maybe she still feels some guilt for the whole sorry incident, as evidenced by when she told Amaral of her dream. It seemed to me that was a half-hearted attempt at confession.

Anonymous said...


Maddie is a McCann.Anyone on her side can't be an anti McCann.I'm putting the welfare and rights of the child before any and all adults.

Some may say that is anti McCann..some parents also say that not joining adult friends for dinner and drinks would be anti social.I don't think like that.

No1 should always be the best interests and safety of the child.Then and now.

I see the parents on my TV.Wanting help for Maddie.

I really detest being told I hate people because I care about a little McCann.

Speaking on a broader scale.Some abusive parents don't,can't,aren't and/or won't understand that when others step in to protect that parent's child from them...they may see it as about them,others being unfair to them and punishing them.

Adults sometimes can't grasp that it's about and for the child's safety,the child has center stage and that is as it should be.

Anonymous said...

My views are open.Logically having the kind of connections bloggers have raised here could make people and their whole family targets.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you Pat,and the more you delve into the case the more certain we are as to what happened to Madeleine. However will the truth ever be revealed? We can all speculate until the cows come home. Most of the rock solid evidence has never been taken seriously, or has been destroyed or just hidden. It is time to investigate why British Police, the press and influential people are protecting the Mcanns.As you so rightly predicted the next and final step will be to find an innocent scapegoat to pin the abduction on and then the Mcanns can get on with their lives and live happily or unhappily ever after.
But why has the government closed file around the couple? Why is it keen to ignore the truth and persistently feed the British people inaccurate/one-sided information about the case.I have been reading people's comments on different websites- there are so many plausible reasons that my head is whirling.
1)Mcann and his friend Dr.Payne may have connexions with paedophiles and may have inside info.about somebody important who does not want a scandal so G. leaned on the Govt. to get him out of his own personal mess. He called one person up in England and the whole circus started up within hours.
2)GM did something incredibly wonderful. Perhaps he saved someone's life and this person who is tremendously grateful and incredibly important is eternally indebted to him.
3) There is a bretheren element / the old school tie element. Lots of the people who are supporting GM and KM have some sort of connexion with Scotland or the Freemasons or are related to each other.
4. GM was on a commission for nuclear power. State secrets were leaked amd GM was privy to them.
5. Again GM knew some highly incriminating evidence and this involved members of the Establishment and the Princess of Wales' hearing in 2007. In one of the blogs there is ample proof of the conexions between all Gerry's collaboraters/supporters and why the Establishment would want to help him.
6. GM is being groomed to take some post in politics and he needs to be squeaky clean.
There are still holes in these theories but it is important to realise that right now MG and KG are under the protection of some pretty powerful people who can manipulate and pervert justice at the tax payers' expense

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Anonymous at 7.14. I think all your theories are good ideas except number 6. As for number 2, that had never occurred to me before.

KarinT said...

I really think your theorie is quiet good! But it makes me wonder .... You state Madeleine died AFTER her parents went to the Tapasbar at around 20.30hours. But I read everywhere on the internet that it takes about 90 to 120 minutes for a dead body to emit human cadaverine. If Eddie the cadaverdog smelled there has been a dead body behind the sofa that would mean the body has been lying behind the sofa for at least 90 minutes? At 22hours Kate raised the alarm so I suppose Madeleine's body was already gone at that time. That would mean the body was not in the apartment for at least 90 minutes (say she died right after her parents left at 20.30 then the cadaverine has not been emitted until at least 22.00). So that is why I think she must have died before they went to diner...

PS I'm Dutch and my English is not very good so I hope you understand my post;)

AnneGuedes said...

I do agree that she died at the end of the afternoon. Not only because of the scent, but because the horror of discovery wouldn't have given time to dispose of the body. Kate raised the alarm and Gerald immediately left with Madeleine. There's no other way.
I quite agree with Thomas that they've put themselves in a dramatic no-return situation. Gerald did, and for Kate it's was short term salvation. This woman must live in a permanent fear, the haunting feeling she wishes Gonçalo Amaral to have.

Anonymous said...

The problem with the reconstruction on crime watch, tanner never got up from the table until Gerry came back?
Which depicts tanner never saw Gerry talking to wilks?
It makes sense why Gerry and wilks never saw jane tanner, but brings into question the time line jane gave was not correct in what she saw, the man would of been long gone before jane got up from the table?

Anonymous said...

Clear since initial few days that the information provided by the parents was inaccurate. Circumstantial evidence implies the following:
- Madeleine died in accident which parents believed could be blamed on them (leading to prison, loss of custody of other children).
- Accident happened between 5.30 and 7.15 pm, after children put to bed but before the parents had gone to dinner. [Note the efforts to provide an alibi around this time]
- All children given a very light sedative to help them sleep through the night while the parents were at dinner [Note the police observation on twins sleeping all night and Fiona Payne note that Kate was checking their breathing all night] no malicious intent; just didn’t want the children waking up and being scared if parents away at dinner.
- The parents were in their own bedroom getting ready for dinner. Madeleine woke up, despite sedative; got up, walked to living room window to look for parents who she presumed were in restaurant; unstable from sedative, fell and hit her head. Time around 7. Some minutes later, when she had already died, parents came out and found her.
- Despite being extremely distressed. They decide to cover it up. Madeleine’s body is hidden in a cupboard. Mrs McCann is deeply distressed; puts Madeleine’s toy – cuddle cat – with Madeleine in the cupboard.
- The parents give themselves two sets of tasks: Gerry goes outside to look for somewhere to hide Madeleine. Kate stays in apartment to clean (scrubs floor of blood and cleans clothing with blood). They use their cell phones to call and sms each other on progress. [Note: deleted sms messages and calls before phones given to police]
- Parents meet back at apartment; go to dinner later than planned.
- Kate ‘checks’ on children first. Around 9pm takes Madeleine out of the cupboard and cradles her in her lap to say goodbye [Note cadaver odour on Kate trousers), puts her back in the cupboard. Opens the window for the alleged abductor.
- During Gerry’s last visit (from the dinner table) to check on the children he moves Madeleine from the apartment to the location outside the apartment that he had identified earlier. He puts cuddle cat on Madeleine’s bed [Note: cuddle cat had cadaverine odour but the bed didn’t, which means that cuddle cat was in contact with a dead body but bed was not]
- Gerry returns to dinner. At 10.10 Mrs McCann goes to the apartment and sounds the alarm.
- All the friends come up to the apartment. They know nothing of the death. Mr. McCann tells everyone they will all be accused of negligence without timeline showing regular visits to the children. They hurriedly produce something. It provides an alibi for Gerry.
- Once everything is in motion the parents are finally able to release their distress. Testimony by Tapas group to UK police stated that Kate was banging her head against a wall, and Mr. McCann was on the floor of a bedroom in a feotal position (see Russel O Brien testimony). The actions of parents grieving for a death and not of parents searching for their daughter. Mrs. McCann calls for a priest.
What inspires the above scenario?
- The death must be before dinner because parents needed time to grieve, plan. And cadaverine odour usually takes +2 hours to be present. Assuming body no longer in apartment at 10.10 then death must no later than 20.05. And Kate had cadaverine odour on her trousers: implication is she held dead person on her lap at least two hours after death. The last time she could have touched Madeleine would have been during check circa 9pm. This puts death at around 7pm, latest.
- Some have suggested that death could have occurred much earlier. Unlikely. To be linked to the sedatives had to come after bedtime.
- Parents found themselves in nightmare situation having lost one child and facing the loss of the others. Took a quick decision which then took on a life of its own. Have suffered enormously; forced to relive scenario every day, unable to publicly grieve for deceased child. I bet if they could redo everything today they would simply have called the police.

Anonymous said...

I have thought number 1 for so long and really believe it to be the truth thats why even with all the evidence showing their guilt some top notch who is in a pedo ring is protecting them as they are in the know or also in the same ring as this top notch person. Just make them take a lie detector and and let it come to an end and let little Maddie finally rest in peace.