Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Who Should be the Top Suspect in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

The so-called newspapers have been going wild about the new "suspect" in the missing Madeleine McCann case. The poor man - a dead man - has now had his name and face broadcast worldwide, branded as the top suspect in what would clearly be the murder of Maddie McCann. His family is furious, as they should be, that their relative is having his reputation destroyed in the media without -and here is the point - without a shred of evidence linking him to any such crime.

The important word in my last sentence is the word "link." THAT and only THAT makes a person a suspect. Links can be physical, geographical, verbal, or behavioral but they should be meaningful in the sense that the link is logical in the sense of the crime. Also, depending of the strength of each link, one link might suffice (like the victim's body buried in someone's basement) or the links added together create a picture of someone likely to have been involved in the crime. Euclides Monteiro, the dead black suspect in question - does not have anything near what I would call a reasonably strong link to the crime. It is clear the media is trying to paint a picture of someone with numerous concerning traits (drug user, burglar, angry -ex-employee) plus one near-link (phone ping in vicinity of Praia da Luz on that day/evening/night) to vault him to a suspect position.

I will be the first to say if I were investigating this crime, I would definitely look at Monteiro because he was someone in the area and he had a criminal record. These would be the only reasons since there was no evidence of a break-in, there was no evidence of a burglary, and there was no attempt at a ransom. I would keep Monteiro's name around but I certainly wouldn't call him a suspect nor would I make a big deal of it.

Let's look at how someone should become a suspect. Take Bobby Joe Leonard. He was an African-American convicted of the rape and attempted murder of a 14-year-old African-American girl. So how long did it take for him to become a suspect? Well, about a New York minute since he didn't strangle the girl well enough and she woke up and told the police it was Bobby Joe Leonard. But, let's suppose Bobby wasn't a poor excuse for a murderer and he did the job properly. The young teen would have been found in the closet of an empty apartment building. The police would have gone back to the last person who was known to have seen her. Guess who that was? Yes, Bobby Joe Leonard. The teen (a runaway) came to live with Bobby and his girlfriend when her druggie boyfriend got himself jailed. Very good Link One. The abandoned building the girl was found in was one of those that she was working in with Bobby to clean and get ready for residents to move into. Very good Link Two. The victim couldn't have gotten to the building on her own and the nature of the crime would lead investigators to believe it was someone she knew. Bobby was in the habit of driving the girl to work. Very good Link Three. And let's not ignore very good Link Four. Bobby Joe Leonard is a lifetime felon with a rape on his record.

Okay, now let's look at another rape that was committed across town in a townhouse. A fifty-two-year-old Caucasian woman was found half-naked and strangled in her bedroom closet. Her car was stolen along with money and jewelry. Should Bobby Joe Leonard become a suspect in that crime? Let's look at possible links.

Liink One: Victim was strangled and found in a closet. Same MO as Bobby's other crime.
Link Two: She was raped. Same MO as Bobby's other crime.
Link Three: She was robbed of money and jewelry which are crimes of which Bobby has been convicted.
Link Four: The car was found four blocks from Bobby's mother's house in an African-American section of town.
Link Five: Bobby did not have a car at the time and was possibly at the courthouse down the street from the victim on the day of the crime
Link Six: The clutch was destroyed. Bobby can't drive a standard transmission car.
Link Seven: Bobby worked on the apartment property three weeks prior to the victim's murder.
Link Eight: Bobby was actually IN the woman's bedroom three weeks prior when she gave an old computer to him and he took the computer from her bedroom.

Would you say Bobby is a good suspect? Maybe should be the TOP suspect? I would think so. He was never actually convicted of that crime due to the police overfocusing on the woman's fiancé  in the beginning and the evidence, therefore, disappearing to the point where there was not enough to take Bobby to court, but I would say that the fiancé is not anywhere near as good a suspect as Bobby Joe Leonard.

Now, back to Madeleine McCann. Let''s look at two possible suspects: Monteiro and the McCanns and see who fits the crime better.

Link One: Had access to the victim. - McCanns
Link Two: No evidence of a burglary - McCanns
Link Thee: Blood and cadaver evidence of death in the holiday flat - McCanns
Link Four: Caucasian male seen carrying off child toward beach - McCanns
Link Five: Motive for removing a dead child from the flat - McCanns

Suspect Rating: Mccanns 5 Monteiro 0

I think the numbers speak for themselves as to who is the better suspect, don't you?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 5, 2013

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

 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

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...

Thanks Pat for everything.

So we have gone from six years of Tannerman - who was some parent+child (although walking in the wrong direction) WHOOOSHED ... he's gone.

Everything is happy in Tapas-nine land.... hang on a moment, now they haven't got alibis!!! Remember Tanner's sighting instantly gave everyone an iron clad alibi

But never mind - move on. Two e-fits and the Smith sighting. HYPE HYPE HYPE ........ WHOOOOOSHED ... also gone, WHY?

Then we come to this poor deceased person and his family, not forgetting his child. No connection whatsoever, except a 'ping' Who actually is behind this?
The MET via rogatory interviews?
The Portuguese police whether PJ or independent review

..... whilst under judicial secrecy .... emmmmmm something doesn't add up

Back to the LISBON hearing, due to recommence earlier today (haven't caught up with those events yet) but let's concentrate on the here and now and the silly season (Christmas) ahead.

At some point there has to be the LULL, the LULL so the McCanns can go back to playing happy families and travel wherever in the world incognito

Perhaps this is the end of the line for the case of missing Madeleine McCann!

Back in main stream media land of the UK - let us not forget Rebecka Brooks and her magic and getting Camerson to foot the bill for the MET's interference, oppppps investigation. Shouldn't have said that, after all Leveson inquiry was able to untangle that mess - well whitewash it!!


Anonymous said...

thank you pat have follow all your blogs on madeline because ypu are only one who gets it right that poor man family mc cans have got away with it for far to long all the lies the have told thank you for standing up for madeline because her parents sure wont

TM Hondo1650 said...

Just how much more can the farce of the McCann case go? We have suspects from all over for 6 years. Starting with Robert Murat. Surely even the most intelligent of our lords and masters can't still buy the absurd abduction story. They way both Kate and Gerry have reacted since that most insincere first night appeal. Why would Gerry need his appeal written down. Was that for Sky News? Since they were the first to be called. Also, your daughter has been as they say abducted, with a paedophile gang they insist?? What do they do. Throw Madeleine a birthday celebration. Now you might do that if your daughter had just passed away, and wanted to celebrate her life and sad it was so close to her 4th Birthday. However, abducted and be treated, well, it doesn't bear to think about it. Any normal parent would be beside the phone, under extreme stress of grief and beside themselves that someone has taken your baby girl, WHILE THEY WERE OUT. However, many noticed from the first few days. Both had a calmness that while all hell was breaking loose around them in the media frenzy and everyone doing the searching. They were off having audiences with the Pope. It seemed that no matter they weren't around according to both of them, alarm bells rung in everyone's head except it seemed for the McCann's they were responsible parents and they were sitting as they stated n their back garden. Must be some size back garden the McCann's have. However, we are now over 6 years from Madeleine's fateful night. I believe the party was the family giving Madeleine a good send off. The fund was raised just too fast, plus the 100 day was being planned. So they knew their daughter wasn't going to be found soon. To extort money for fraud using public sympathy as a ruse is cruel and inhumane. The fund is not even a charity, it's a limited company. So how is this money being spent. Since they came back from being arrested in Portugal they have supposedly hire numerous private investigators all claiming they knew where Madeleine was. Still over 6 years gone and we are still getting palmed off with numerous Ludicrous (the McCann's famous word) e-fits and too many people's lives being put in the cross hairs that the McCann's aimed at, I believe intentionally. Portugal has taken the biggest hit on this as by not standing their ground when they could have, due to the media circus also created by the McCann's hitting their tourist trade, and getting up the nose of the locals. Even though it was a child missing the Portuguese done their bit helping in the search. But watching her supposed mum and dad acting as celebrities it turned them off. No wonder. Poor Madeleine if was still alive would be now 10. Totally changed in features. She could stand in front of them and I really doubt they would know her unless her eye is more prominent now. We live in desperate times when a child is a commodity to be used by adults to give them parent status with taking any of the responsibilities. So where are we now. We have two police forces supposedly searching, If they have the McCann's in their sights they have to pull their fingers out. Because what I fear, is this new farcical black dead suspect turns into someone either being harmed or taking their own life by what the media make up or find out. One has already called this latest dead man BEAST. Hurtful for his family and friends. But hey, the McCann's and their followers shout with glee Kate and Gerry are not suspects. Now I wonder why nearly the rest of the world don't believe that. Oh and to cap it all. Kate McCann is now the ambassador for missing children. That woman is living the dream off the back of a supposedly abducted daughter. This just can't go on, but who's going to stop it?

Anonymous said...

you are so right I agree with you it about time the police started listing to the public it has to stop that poor mans family its seems its alright to destroy other people when its the mc cans who should have to answer for this crime come on people its time to make a standgoqcep

Anonymous said...

I love how we can have an open discussion with Pat, ask her questions, give opinions and theories. Pat will reply, listen to criticism and allow everyone to think freely. Why don't the Mccanns do the same? Or would that be too time-consuming as they'd have to threaten to sue most posters and ask for comments to be removed! I was once wrongly accused of something (on a much smaller scale, I must say!) And I wanted nothing more than all the questions and doubts everyone had to be presented to me so I could explain. I admitted where I was at fault and in the end, everybody knew the truth. The real person was caught! Wouldn't it be great if we could sit the Mccanns down and ask a few questions? *sigh* it will never happen

Anonymous said...

anonymous 5.59
The McCanns may not be able to do the same.Too many with power,money,influence and reputations and business interests to protect in this case.This includes the child friendly resort/tour company which is known and has business interests on a global level.
I can't exclude that they may be scared,controlled,silenced and have some need to remain silent and take part in and take the blame for something they don't wish to.For there to be some need for them to do what they are doing and portraying themselves as they do and are.In ways that often have me thinking why would they say,type,act this or that way.Ways which often seem to make themselves look bad to the public.Then if I had to or was taking blame for something I didn't do and I couldn't prove it or reveal the truth.I know how I would come across.Angry,resentful .If I know that keeping secrets and putting up the consequences of that is for a good cause,one which I believe in or one which I know helps others that makes it easier to do.
Crime scenes can be set up in more ways than one.How many people could have different motives for possibly doing this in this case?
Is it true that only Kate's prints were found on the window?That'd be one very clean window considering the fact that some kids have a tendency to put grubby fingers all over windows as though magnetically attracted to the glass.

Anonymous said...

lots of potential scapegoats

Anonymous said...

Could be that PJ they used the deceased man as an excuse to re-open the investigation. If he fits well as a scapegoat, he may fit well for an excuse too. When they have opened the investigation they can go on with the case and other suspects. Beacuse of the mighty pr-machinery running this farce, and risks for individuals of being sued, any police force needs to cover their backs and clear all possible suspects before closing in on the more likely perpetrators. That may be the situation. What we today read in media may not be so true.

John said...


I doubt that the Public Ministry has accepted to reopen this inquiry just because the PJ did find that this ex-employee was in the neighborhood of the O.C. on the 3th of May.
This PJ team of Porto is said to have worked two long years on this case. They came back on the site for a while and made their own reconstruction. Their conclusion is that the little Madeleine has been abducted.
Anyone can still consider that this team is wrong or lies and works for the McCanns (who give their instructions to their Prime Minister and the Portuguese government), but, personally, I think that the most probable is that this team has made significant progress in this investigation.

The team of Porto doesn't comment about their investigation. As usual, the journalists speculate on the basis of some leaks and their own investigation but we don't know much about this lead, actually.
Mr Amaral, himself, said that the hypothesis of a burglary must be examined. It's not because there was no apparent trace of breaking in this flat that there was no attempt of burglary.

Anonymous said...

John, you don't know that the PJ believe Madeleine was abducted, all you know is that that's what they and Scotland Yard are saying publicly. If SY are chasing up Smithman, and the PJ are concentrating on the black ex-employee, plus lots of other suspects raising their heads every few days, I'd say there could well be a hidden purpose behind all this farcical stuff. I certainly hope there's a purpose of some kind, because I wouldn't like to think SY has spent £5 million pounds of taxpayers' money just to show us the e-fit of Smithman so carefully kept hidden by the McCanns for 5 years. Nor would I like to think a dead man whose phone happened to ping in a particular location would suddenly be elevated to top suspect (go away, Smithman!), unless there's some real evidence connecting him to the case, eg DNA, photographs, suspicious text messages or emails, suspicious alerts of cadaver dogs, etc. You can't label someone a suspect for a serious crime just because they might have been in the vicinity at the time. I was once very close to where a terrorist shooting took place, in fact I may well have been the last person to speak to the victim (a policeman) but I certainly wasn't his killer (no one has ever been charged with the murder). This Cape Verde man is of course very conveniently dead. Maybe when I'm dead I'll be top suspect for the poor dead young policeman's murder, maybe that's how it works?

John said...

You're right on this point, Anonymus. I must admit that don't know if the PJ believes that Madeleine has been abducted.
I was just repeating what has been recently written in some portuguese newspapers which is
not the Bible, for sure.

Anonymous said...

I know one thing, If I was the PJ or the Met I would not let the suspect/s run the case and tell me how high I should jump when they tell to jump. And before anyone says,"Ah but the McCanns are not suspects" Their suspect status was only lifted when they shelved the case. Shelved! not dropped. They can still have their suspect status reinstated if the PJ can do their job without interference from the british media and met.

Anonymous said...

The press seem to have overlooked one simple fact. Mobile phones may be registered to one person, but that does not mean that the registered owner either had possession of, or used the phone at any particular time.

There are a number of scenarios that are credible, but now, as the named gent is dead, totally unprovable:

1. He could have lent the phone to someone else.
2. He could have lost his phone which was then found by someone else.
3. His phone could have been stolen from him and he never bothered to report it.
4. It is also possible that someone he knew could have taken it temporarily without his knowledge and returned it before he noticed that it was missing.

As the 'ping' can only, at best, put his phone, and not him, in the area at the relevant time, the 'link' becomes even more tenuous.

John said...

Once again, we don't know what exactly the PJ of Porto has found. Maybe this mobile phone has been used that night and they have the number phone of one (or several) correspondant.

Also many fingerprints have been found in the 5A, that were considered as "inadequate" in 2007, but even if some of them are just partial, they can perhaps be compared today to the fingerprints of this suspect (I guess they have his fingerprints since he was condemned in the past).

We don't know yet but the PJ must know much more than us.

Marz said...

Why do you keep bringing up that a cadaver dog made a hit? as far as I know the cadaver dog hit on the rental car that was rented 25 days after little Maddie was abducted? Please don't use that as proof that these parents did anything to Maddie. Remember the Haleigh Cummings case? I remember a cadaver dog hit on a garbage bin after the child when "missing" and her body has yet to be found. I don't think cadaver dogs hits are always accurate.

Anonymous said...

But that brings us to the following questions..Who did the Smith family see that night? He wasn't black! All the suspects, the ones at the docks or the ones lurking around the apartment on or on the days before. Not one was black! He's just appeared out of the blue! Are we, the public who are meant to be searching for Madeleine supposed to forget the e-fit now? Thousands called in and many gave the same name. He wasn't the main suspect when the world was shown the Crimewatch reconstruction. So do we now look for white AND black men (the search becomes harder) or what? Most of these were rhetorical questions by the way!

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Marz what you say is simply not true. The cadavour dogs alerted to several locations in the apartment as well as on the rental car.

guerra said...


The EU Data Retention Directive (DRD), adopted by the European Union in 2006, is the most prominent example of a mandatory data retention framework. The highly controversial Directive compels all ISPs and telecommunications service providers operating in Europe to collect and retain a subscriber's incoming and outgoing phone numbers, IP addresses, location data, and other key telecom and Internet traffic data for a period of 6 months to 2 years. This applies to all European citizens, including those not suspected or convicted of any crime. Pushed through by powerful U.S. and U.K. government interests, the DRD forces services providers to retain traffic data revealing who communicates with whom by email, phone, and SMS, including the duration of the communication and the locations of the users. The data is often made available to law enforcement.

A number of countries have transposed the Directive into national legislation including Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Countries outside the European Union such as Serbia and Iceland have also adopted data retention laws. Constitutional Courts in some countries have issued decisions striking down national data retention laws for violating human rights.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Marz here is the link (other videos are available too and can be seen on the side bar)

Lesley said...

Hi Marz,
You may want to check out the article below,
On the 16th September 2007(shortly after they returned to Britain after receiving aguido status) the McCanns contacted the legal team involved in the Eugene Zapata Defence?
Cadaver dogs were being used in his prosecution too.He denied the murder of his wife and the hiding of her body.The McCanns thought his discrediting of the dogs evidence could be useful to their case.
Eugene Zapata subsequently confessed to the crime...after nearly 30 years the dogs got him! Guess what...the McCanns promptly dropped their request for help?


Have you actually read the record of Eddie and Keela,the dogs used. They have never been wrong?
They do not alert to Garbage...please read the details.

Anonymous said...

And, it weren't cadaver dogs. It was a cadaver dog and a blood dog. Inside, blood as well as cadaverine were marked by the dogs. Blood was found, sampled and tested. First test was alarming, second test left the evidence not admissable.

TM Hondo1650 said...

It's become more over what's is the real reason behind the the high power protection of both Kate and Gerry McCann and we shouldn't forget their holiday friends the Tapas7. Before May 2007, no one I am sure I speak for many new the McCann family existed outside their own circle. Since that night, they have become famous for all the wrong reasons. It makes no sense even after all this time there is still a requirement for spokesmen, media and high powered lawyers. Now unless you fear being charged with something what is their real purpose? The police are carrying out their investigation in both countries. Suspects are being investigated which is fine, however, I wish those could be kept under wraps until that suspect has been arrested. It seems that it is ok, to call everyone on that had remotely any poor alibi within that date and time of Madeleine's disappearance. Those are fare game no matter if they are guilty or innocent, their lives are torn apart. However, one sniff at the McCann's being classed with any involvement, even though Madeleine's disappearance was their responsibility due to admitting they weren't around to protect her, all hell breaks loose. Any other set of parents would have a very hard time with being responsible for their child going missing. Why is even mentioning that point of fact, deemed disrespectful, and from many quarters hateful to the parents? I just can't get my head around why it's total hands off? It just doesn't add up. Not trying to be nasty or cruel, but why is it totally impossible to even consider the parents maybe involved in whatever happened to their daughter. It's not that unheard of the guilty party is much more close to home. Hope I'm making some sense here, for this case baffles the hell out of me from the first time the parents made their first TV appeal message and everything that has gone on since.

Anonymous said...

Pat, it is so good to see your blog reports on the McCann case - every one of them concise and to the point and I agree with everything you say. I do hope that Scotland Yard is keeping abreast of your words since they give the impression that they are 'serving' the parents, not the child - at enormous cost to the taxpayers of the UK. And how the McCanns love their celebrity status and all that goes with it. They truly disgust me and I can only hope that one day people like you (and others, like Goncalo Amaral) will be able to bring them down.

Pat Brown said...


You wrote:

"I doubt that the Public Ministry has accepted to reopen this inquiry just because the PJ did find that this ex-employee was in the neighborhood of the O.C. on the 3th of May.
This PJ team of Porto is said to have worked two long years on this case. They came back on the site for a while and made their own reconstruction. Their conclusion is that the little Madeleine has been abducted."

I will have to disagree with this statement based on what I know from profiling cold cases and analyzing evidence.

First of all the crime scene evidence has NOT changed from six years ago. It cannot because the crime scene no longer exists; therefore, what was known then is known now. And what that crime scene evidence showed was that someone died in the apartment and no break-in was evident. This is still the same. Now, you can decide the dog evidence is not acceptable (because you don't buy their and their trainer's ability) but the fact remains there is no sign of a break-in or the window being busted into like the McCanns claimed (and was proven to be a lie).

Therefore, there is still zero proof from the primary crime scene (the flat) that the child was abducted.

So, the only reason one could, after discarding all evidence pointing to the McCanns) that an abduction occurred is evidence from a secondary crime scene. Evidence would have to exist in the form of a body on someone's property, the discovery of a body in a public area with semen dna from a stranger, photos of Maddie being tortured in someone's basement, or photos of Maddie that are 100% proven to be her at some other location or time. Or Maddie would have had to have been found alive and in someone's care.

I doubt any of the above have come to light so there would be no proof of abduction that the PJ could rely on as absolute. What is more likely is that abduction is considered a line of inquiry but that should not have been enough to open the case again.

So why did they? You would like to believe that in this world, no police department would operate on less than total truthfulness and a desire for justice and that all involved are entirely competent. I can tell you from working cold cases with full access to the police files (working WITH the police department) that none of this is so. I have cases where the detectives simply analyzed the case wrong and when I present them with an analysis with a different suspect and motive, they agree I am correct but it is too late to prosecute because the evidence is gone. Furthermore, I have seen them turn around and tell the public I was not of any help and they are still looking for the original suspect because they do not want to look bad. I have seen cases closed with a fall guy when I know full well the evidence does not at all support that suspect having committed the crime. I have seen cases closed erroneously with a prosecution or an administrative closing. It is politics and saving one's butt and image that often rule the day. If you believe that the PJ could not be making decisions based on politics or incompetence rather than skill and a desire for justice, you have rose colored glasses on.

Now, is this what the PJ is doing? I have no idea at this point. They may be doing some excellent work and they may be circling back around to the McCanns. I don't know. What I do know is that it is hardly likely there is evidence of an abduction from reanalyzing the files and doing some investigating unless they have found solid physical evidence and so far I am seeing no signs of that.

Eddie said...

Do people realise that with the authorities now jumping on this black guy's head, it effectively renders the entire Crimewatch programme meaningless.

Shows just how much faith the authorities have in the two e- fits.

So what was the point of the CW programme if you're just going to ignore your findings.

Let me guess... someone thought that recruiting Crimewatch in a propaganda effort to ram down the public's throat that the McCann are innocent would be a great idea... and of course it would undermine Amaral's defence at his trial.. probably the real target given the timing.

Gee.. over five million quid of tax payers money spent on these two.. and still they look like a couple of liars.

Anonymous said...

Pat, it's semantics, but ... abduction [from the original latin] means removal, taken/leading away ...
And THAT is what has happened without a shadow of doubt. She's been taken away. Right? Why, in what state and by whom, is another question. Police don't lie, but they can play on words.
Regards, Châtelaine.

Anonymous said...

November 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Yes I think we are to look at black men for this despite that none of the "sightings" AT ALL were black men.

Be that as it may, the next step in this is not to opine whether we are being led down the garden path - of course we are, by almost everyone - but to focus on the next steps, regardless of whether the McCanns or the PJ or Sy or the press or all of the above is creating dodges and may have agendas we don't know of.

We know McCanns have been and rightly should be suspects, we have the timelines opened up and the alibi of the Tanner sighting and the check by Oldfield disregarded or removed by SY.

We have Pat's latest few blogs showing that it makes sense for Gerry to have taken Madeleine, finding her deceased, from the apt in a panic and heading away from the apt to be seen by Smith, to hide her somewhere in that vicinity.

The next step is to figure out or lay out some ideas as to where she was left, who removed her from that spot, where they might have gone and how that could be done if by the parents or someone they contacted that night or following morning via the cell phone records the Portuguese judge decided were not admissible or were an invasion of privacy.

If Maddie were left in an abandoned building near where Smith's saw the Gerry-look alike, who could have moved her? McCanns, who went out "searching" alone in the wee hours the following morning? Someone they contacted?

Those texts were deleted; we have no idea who they may have called.

Could they have had time to move her body that next morning (provided they had time to move it from the apt the night before when the timelines are so much in question as to who was at the table at the Tapas bar when and what time Kate left, what time Gerry left, how long he was gone, when the alert went up, now possibly moved to half an hour earlier than they state (more like 930 than 10)

if they moved her to a site that evening and moved it again the following morning, is that possible and credible?

Would they have needed to do it themselves?

If they did move it again in the morning did they have time to do so to Rocha Negra or another close by spot? They certainly spent enough time running up there after she was gone.

If they moved it in the hire car, what supporting evidence do we have - the dogs, who were proven reliable in many cases including Zapata, alerted to their hire car. Does that mean the body had to be in the car or only the shoes they were wearing or the blanket she was wrapped in needed to be moved?

Where are Kate's pink running shoes that she was wearing when bitten so she says by a small dog as she went running, thus leaving the blood evidence on the shoes?

Were there blankets or sheets or shoes or tennis bags missing from the evidence that could have been transported in that hire car boot leaving evidence?

McCanns did not need to do all of this alone nor were they alone and devoid of helpers at May 3rd or afterwards.

Barring the ridiculous (Madeleine died May 1st and another child was substituted for her at the crèche for 2 days, Gerry carried Amelie about the town that evening to make people see an abduction occurring, etc) what could have reasonably happened, perpetuated by two highly intelligent and motivated people with friends in high and low places?

guerra said...

First of all the original people who investigated this case have nothing to be ashamed of, they did the best they could under very difficult circumstances in an environment of political interference from day one. What they believe to have happened to the girl is the same belief shared by members of Scotland Yard and the Leicester police who were on Portuguese soil in 2007. The Portuguese police were victims of an unprecedented campaign of defamation worldwide, especially Mr. Amaral. It’s the very reason he wrote his book on the case, to explain why the police were justified in suspecting the McCanns. He wrote it to defend his reputation and the reputation of his colleagues on the force.

I don’t believe this small contingent of 4 officers from Porto led by Mrs. Helena Monteiro was set up for the purpose of redeeming the Portuguese police. Framing someone for the crime now would actually give credence to every lie that has been written about the Portuguese police. This small team is working with Scotland Yard for the sole purpose of devaluing the work done by the original investigators, i.e. to devalue the contents of the case files. Both Scotland Yard and this Porto team have publicly stated that the McCanns are not suspects, Mr. Redwood even did the rounds of the morning talk shows to bring this message to the public, now they are demonstrating what they told the public by their actions. In proclaiming that some disgruntled worker or gypsies or whomever could have taken the girl the message they are conveying to the public is that the original investigators were wrong, that Mr. Amaral is wrong. That’s the whole purpose of this latest flurry of activity and it’s no coincidence that it is taking place at the same time as the libel trial.

Did anybody notice in my previous post that European laws only require that phone data be retained for 2 years? Do you think a phone company is going to retain data for more than 6 years and if not where did they get a hold of Mr.Euclides Monteiro’s phone number? He is not mentioned in the case files. How were they able to place him at the scene of the crime? And how can Scotland Yard claim that they are going to analyse all the phone traffic of every individual that was in Praia da Luz in 2007?

It’s interesting that the Portuguese police were denied access by judge Pedro Frias to the deleted phone records of the McCanns and their friends. Mr. Frias ended any hope the Portuguese police had of ever solving this case.

guerra said...

I don’t believe this small contingent of 4 officers from Porto led by Mrs. Helena Monteiro was set up for the purpose of redeeming the Portuguese police. Framing someone for the crime now would actually give credence to every lie that has been written about the Portuguese police. This small team is working with Scotland Yard for the sole purpose of devaluing the work done by the original investigators, i.e. to devalue the contents of the case files. Both Scotland Yard and this Porto team have publicly stated that the McCanns are not suspects, Mr. Redwood even did the rounds of the morning talk shows to bring this message to the public, now they are demonstrating what they told the public by their actions. In proclaiming that some disgruntled worker or gypsies or whomever could have taken the girl the message they are conveying to the public is that the original investigators were wrong, that Mr. Amaral is wrong. That’s the whole purpose of this latest flurry of activity and it’s no coincidence that it is taking place at the same time as the libel trial.

Did anybody notice in my previous post that European laws only require that phone data be retained for 2 years? Do you think a phone company is going to retain data for more than 6 years and if not where did they get a hold of Mr.Euclides Monteiro’s phone number? He is not mentioned in the case files. How were they able to place him at the scene of the crime? And how can Scotland Yard claim that they are going to analyse all the phone traffic of every individual that was in Praia da Luz in 2007?

It’s interesting that the Portuguese police were denied access to the deleted phone records of the McCanns and their friends by Judge Pedro Frias, an action which ended any hope the Portuguese police had of ever solving this case.

guerra said...

I posted a shortened version of my comment because I thought the long version had not been posted. I clicked on the garbage can icon to delete the longer comment, but apparently it doesn't work.

Anonymous said...

Over the years, not forgetting the first person to basically be accused, Robert Murat. There was two sightings of a man (doesn't have to be a man does it!!) shall we therefore refer to person+child.

Did you believe the Tanner sighting? Did you believe that it was actually possible that between McCanns check & chatting outside, the abduction took place as he stood there, under his nose & conveniently witnessed by Tanner. But that was what mainstream UK media promoted & as I put in a previous post, CERTAINLY gave every member of the T9 an alibi, it could not have been ANY of them. Should there be recriminations on Tanner & the programmes that broadcasted the tosh!!

But how DO YOU FEEL NOW, now that it never happened that way. The MET casually say that ''tannerman'' was merely a parent+child returning from the creche. I know I feel CHEATED! That I spent mental capacity pondering what was after a cluster fuck outside 5a and totally impossible. No explanation - excluded!! MOVE ON Even though no explanation that the parent+child is walking in the wrong direction- so what, just nit-picking

Then next up, what we all knew then, as we know now the Smith sighting. But before concentration of effort could be channeled along comes another OUT OF BLUE, but dead suspect who's unexplained 'ping' sets up a chain of consequences. OMG - it's hardly surprising at this rate, Robert Murat got away with his life.

But presentation of two e-fits by the MET buried in the pile of files belonging to the McCanns, was there also information there about the parent+child, so have the McCanns been totally counter-productive by their interference & what might have ''appeared'' incompetent PIs. The UK tax payers have paid £5m+ just for a team of police officers to REVIEW the McCanns information? One assumes so, since the MET are really very SHY about names, times, places & information. Since, I repeat here again, the Smiths said they would not COOPERATE with Kennedy aka \financial underwriter & cloak&digger gameplayer at the time of Oakley Investigators.

Farce continues, but meanwhile always WELL UNDER the radar is the group themselves. Yet, with tannerman written out of the script, the group remains exposed without alibis. Is this not important? The timeline merely denotes THOSE NOT PRESENT at the dining table, it doesn't reference them to their actions, AWAY from the Tapas.

But even if an abductor took their opportunity after MO's check, you still have Tanner walking to her apartment & O'B returning (if this actually took place\sick child) And who know's what JW did next, he could still be walking around in circles, did he not see a 6'+ tall black guy in his 45 minute encirclement of the vicinity.

Oh! see Hewlett, gypsies, German or Dutch speaking people, 6 cleaners & white van - all dropped off the radar.

I believe this is not a complicated or convoluted case. A chain of events, unplanned, swift & by the seat of your pants stuff. And it worked!

If you think of a case like Fred West. He WAS simple - and what he got away with. Where he hid the bodies. The involvement of Rosemary. Yet it went on for years & was discovered by a chance remark from one of his young children in front of a social worker... so we are to be believe.


John said...

Dear Pat,

Thank you for your answer and your interesting comments.
Personally, as everybody, I have no idea of what happened to this little girl and I consider all the all the leads "open".

It is not totally impossible that she'd left this flat on her own and had an fatal accident in the neighborhood or that her parents have tried to simulate an abduction after having done something very wrong to their daughter.
I still think that these two possibilities are very weak, after having followed this case since its beginning and having examined carefully all the documents that have been published on this case.

The most probable, I think, is that there was an abduction prepared and executed by more than one people.
I don't set away neither the possibility of an abduction executed to order.
By whom and for what reason? This is another big question. But there are so many crimes committed in the world for such unbelievable reasons that I'm prepared to learn anything.

I find disturbing too the coincidence of date between the announcement of the disappearance of this little girl and the official announcement of the accusation on seven members of the "Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo" in another case of a child's disappearance in the neighborhood.

I don't know and I hope that this little team in Porto did read the files with a "fresh" and neutral eye and will pursue his work until they'll solve this mystery, at least partly, if possible.

Anonymous said...

Scotland yard are creating an illusion that they are the principal investigators in the case when in fact this is still a case for the PJ in Portugal to make suspects. The PJ have been reported to investigating lines of enquiry that will not be welcomed by some Brits.

Pat Brown said...


Exactly on what evidence do you base your belief that there was an abduction and by more than one person. I am not asking you for a possible scenario that one just makes up as what could have happened because a child is missing but what EVIDENCE do you base your theory on that it is an abduction and by more than one person?

I think you are doing the same thing which I have seen done by "good" detectives. Their theory is based on a gut feeling or a story they can concoct and is NOT based on the evidence. In fact, usually they ignore the evidence as you are doing with the evidence that points to the McCanns in order to have that theory.

And on top of that, your more than one person theory is the most UNLIKELY scenario since kidnapping a child to sell or pull into the sex business is the most ludicrous theory of all. IF she were abducted it would be by a local pedophile and there is no evidence that this occurred either.

Lesley said...

@Guerra,thanks for that information about the phone records...I didn't know about the 2 year storage length?
@Anonymous 5.31pm 6/11, I agree with many of the points you make..this is the fine detail which remains unanswered. I also find it significant that Kate thinks to mention the small dog attack on the day Madeleine disappeared...was she bleeding?
I still have an open mind as to when it happened,Pat's scenario is entirely possible and contains a 'panic' reaction to what happened.

If Maddie died earlier,say in afternoon or an hour or two before the Tapas meal then a form of'planning'could have taken place?
Re clothing,what was Gerry and Kate wearing on that night...Smith sighting says light trousers,Kate says jeans...did they shower and change before May 4th.All this is crucial?
I disagree with you slightly about it being 'ridiculous' that it may have been Amelie that he was carrying.If he was 'staging' an abduction...and Maddy had already been disposed of,then this works?
A live child will leave no cadaverine?Also if he wanted to be seen?
As for Tapas 7,I cannot believe that they were all in on it...simply because someone would have 'broke' before now. Some of them...Yes. Without a focused and meaningful interrogation of them we may never know?

guerra said...

I become suspicious of people who consider that the non existent evidence of abduction is much stronger than the evidence that exists and points to the parent's involvement.

John, I know what your peddling and it's not the truth.

If only people would consider the child, but no it's all about protecting the parent's image; the best lawyers to shut people up, PR firms to disseminate disinformation, to monitor and infiltrate blogs, etc. Nothing really about doing anything for the dignity of the child.

Anonymous said...

The Tapas 7 have all reasons to remain quiet, first they have all likely been visited by Mcann laywers. Second they could also be convicted of child neglect. Also they may be charged for not reporting a crime. If they stay quiet they have everything to win at his point.

John said...


There were / are no evidences to make the McCanns and Murat arguidos neither. Only clues...

My feeling, as you say, is that it would have been not too risky for one people to get into this flat (this type of wooden door is not difficult to open since/if it was unlocked - I don't agree with the demonstration of the "expert" of Mr Amaral, for the reason that I told you already ).

A burglar would have done that without taking a big risk, since he could hide himself or escape quickly if one of the adults would come into the flat.

Kidnapping a child is much more difficult and risky for many reasons. The first one is that the child can cry and shout or to resist and also kidnapping a child is a crime. If you are taken the risk is much higher too.

In order to prepare such a kidnapping and succeed a minimum of preparation/organisation is necessary and the help of an accomplice gives much more chance to succeed. He can warn you in case of somebody is approaching, wait in a vehicle parked nearby, and drive away from the scene while you "take care" of the child.

These are the reasons why Dutroux had Lelievre for helping him, Fourniret, his wife, etc.

guerra said...

Here are a few of the clues:

There were no signs of forced entry into the apartment.

The shutters were not forced open as the parents claimed.

No forensic evidence that an abductor had been in the apartment.

No evidence that anyone had entered or left via the window.

Mrs. McCann’s fingerprints were the only ones found on the window.

Changing story of parents as to which door they used to access the apartment on the fateful night.

Mr. Smith believed that the man he saw carrying a girl on May 3, 2007, was Mr. McCann. He identified the man as wearing pants that were decorated with buttons. There is a photograph of Mr. McCann wearing such pants.

Cadaver dog and blood dog giving the alert behind the sofa.

Cadaver dog giving the alert in the wardrobe in the parent's bedroom.

Cadaver dog giving the alert in flowerbed outside McCann's apartment.

Cadaver dog and blood dog alerting to the car that the McCanns hired.

Blood dog alerting to car key.

Cadaver dog alerting to items of clothing worn by Mrs. McCann.

Despite all the washing, cadaver dog alerting to Madeleine’s plush toy Cuddle cat.

Neither dog gave any signals of alert in any other apartment or car.

Anonymous said...

Dear John, "arguido" is a legal status that is obligatory, by law, to be offered, or that can be requested by/to anyone that while being questioned during an investigation, (or on a upper level, when attending trial), must have their rights protected if there is a risk that responding to the questions posed could make them self-incriminate themselves.

I appreciate very much all the reasoning presented by Pat Brown and by some other commentators.
I agree with Guerra that the nomination of the Porto team (which even raised some legal problems since the Public Ministry was not involved - something that is illegal in PT)wasn't probably motivated to do an honest review of the work of the first team. It is not comprehensible to elect a team without experience in such cases and leaded by an Inspector that had only once investigated the abduction and murder of a teenager. The Portimão team had much more experience and, in the Lisbon headquarters there are inspectors also with much more experience.
About this last "suspect". This is nothing more than a diversion. That man was dismissed from the Ocean Club more than one year before the McCann had their holidays there, and he was employed in the North of Portugal a couple of weeks after his dismissal. Of course he must have visited his wife and kid in Lagos, but I can't see how he would take a little blonde girl to Bragança, where he was staying with his family.

John said...


I was aware about this European Directive but we don't have access to all the documents collected by the PJ of Portimão in 2007-2008.

The PJ of Porto has certainly access to them.

guerra said...

The case file in its entirety from May 2007 to the end of June 2008 when the case was archived is online, available to the public. There is no mention of Mr. Euclides Monteiro.

John said...

If we knew the phone number of Mr Momteiro we could check if it appears on the long lists that are in the file.

Anyway, some pages of this file have not been made public, as I guess that you know.

guerra said...

The only information that has been withheld from the public are the names of registered paedophiles that were investigated, an action that was requested by English authorities when they found out that the case files were to be placed online. In the case files the names are obscured as can be seen here:


Mr. Monteiro does not have a record of abusing children.

Mr. Monteiro lived with his family which included his sister at the time. His sister says that his family and his friends were never contacted by the Portuguese police when the child disappeared. And I believe her because if they had been his name and the names of his friends and family members would have been found in the case files.

They picked the wrong person to cast aspersions on. This family is well backed by the community. They are going to sue and they are going to win.

Anonymous said...

John @ 2.13

When you refer to European Directives, do you mean the Rogatory interviews (known as Roggies)

If you do, they are not usually found with the archived file.

They can be sourced in several places, but here is one to start with

Use Mccannfiles - search for the rest

John said...


I've heard that as well about these "missing pages" but can we be sure that some other pages haven't been undisclosed for any other reasons?

We dont know the phone number of Mr Monteiro (I don't), so we don't know if it's in the file or not. Anybody can speculate about the reasons why this man has been considered as a suspect by this team of Porto. I would clarify one thing about that: I have no problem with speculations, personally. What else to do if we want to discuss about this case? The truth can be "hidden" in some of these speculations...or not.

Anonymous (funny to name somebody under that word, isn't it? :-) ).

No, I did refer to the data retention directive that "Guerra" has mentioned.

By the way, even if this directive is respected by most of the European operators, it doesn't mean that some organizations like the National Security Agency don't keep them carefully forever...This is another story, of course.

guerra said...

There are no missing pages. The files are complete.

Anonymous said...

There is a lot of information both physical and behavioral that points to McCanns, and probably if there had been an abduction there would also be physical and behavioral evidence with that person, however if they don't know who he or she or they are, they can't go look at their home or car or at their behavior (fleeing the jurisdiction, refusing to answer questions, staging a crime scene, refusing a LDT) we can only look at the initial suspects who we do know.

The changes to the statements made by McCanns and their friends and the falsehoods by them or things that do not add up (see Kate's comments about window curtains blowing inwards into the room revealing the windows open when the crime scene photos show the window curtains well tucked in against the wall trapped there by the bed, the obvious false statement related by three witnesses that Kate and Gerry told them the shutters had been jimmied and broken, for two) are evidence. Physical, statements, behavioral, etc that add up to a staged crime scene. Why do you do that if you think /know your child was abducted? There are many more just like this and those were available to the Portugese cops early on. Hence McCanns refusing to help or cooperate, suppressing evidence from their own investigation - how much more do you want in saying there is "no evidence" that mcCanns are involved or could be involved? Whereas with an abduction scenario, apart from the "sighting" of the abduction by Jane tanner, which proved to be FALSE (and they are still selling that line in Kate's book!) there is literally zero evidence of any kind that Madeleine was kidnapped. By one person much less a "ring" that planned this down to the last tittle and jot including removal of all evidence - then failed to have a car waiting and wandered the streets with the child out in the open... no.

Anonymous said...

There is so much about the case and evidence/lack of evidence depending, which took me from believing the little girl was abducted to believing that her parents are responsible for a cover up and that they know absolutely what happened to her. However, as a professional in the field of child welfare with 30 years experience of working with families who are abusive, the decider for me is much more simple. For me, the child is central to everything. The child's wellbeing and safety is paramount. And you know, I just don't get that from the parents. There is the issue of neglect for sure in leaving the children alone. However, in addition, I don't see or hear the million and one ways that they would demonstrate that what might be happening to Maddie RIGHT NOW is their primary concern. Ms Brown, you have commented on this from the start - KM being able to sleep after 5 days for one thing. Can you quantify love? Hmmm, tricky - but what you can quantify, in my view, is where there is a lack of it. And LOVE is something I have heard too little about from them. Early brief descriptions of Maddie, woefully lacking in any real evidence of positive attachment, little (very little) tales of her preferences - but talk of deep and abiding love? No. That would be leaking out of me at every turn.I would want her to know, to see if she possibly could and to feel it in the air. We do not even see any warmth directed at their lost daughter. Maddie has gone. They know it. To talk of loving a person deceased tends to settle down into a silent feeling and grief for what has been lost. What they dare not say is 'We loved her' as that would mean she is not here to be loved any longer. What they can not bring themselves to say is 'We love her' because they know she is not there to be loved any longer. Therefore the issue of love is just another sad gap in their presentation. No warmth, no love, no emotion. For me that says it all. Fundamental feelings towards ones child - like Maddie, they are simply not there.