Sunday, January 5, 2014

Look! It''s a Sex Ring,,, no, It's Gypsies, no.... It's Burglars!

Maybe it was a confused cat burglar
According to the  "news" media which anything but these days, Scotland Yard has solved the six year long mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann. Media around the world is reporting that Scotland Yard has identified a burglary ring of three men as the kidnappers of Madeleine in a burglary gone wrong. Scotland Yard is also reported to be frustrated with Portugal because in refusing to do a joint investigation, Scotland Yard cannot arrest these three men. Furthermore, they are appalled that Portugal is focused on a dead suspect whom Scotland Yard has already eliminated.

Now, let's pretend that the media actually got their all their information from a credible source. If so, what is that credible source, Scotland Yard, telling us?

Mostly that they are either incredibly incompetent or they are incredibly crooked.

Let's look at the facts.

1. The only evidence cited that has made these three men suspects is that they supposedly had a criminal background and supposedly tried to burgle another flat in the complex on another night and that they supposedly exchanged a number of phone calls after Madeleine went missing. All three of these pieces of "evidence" in no way connect these men to the disappearance of Maddie. You couldn't possibly arrest these three men because there isn't probable cause to do so.

2. Burglary rings don't steal children. I can't remember the last time I heard of robbers deciding to kidnap a child instead of taking jewelry and money.

3. Once one of the burglars opened the door to the children's room and peeped in, they would have seen cribs and a small child in bed. Most burglars, realizing this is kid's bedroom, would immediately close the door and go to locations where valuables were more likely to be.

4. If a burglar went into the children's room and saw a little girl awake and looking at them, likely he would simply leave. The chances of a three-year-old child being able to identify a stranger in a dark room is extremely unlikely.

5. If the burglar stole the child, what did he do with her? A ransom demand would be the likely next step but there has been no ransom demand. Burglars are not connected to child sex rings or adoption rings, so did they then realize they had to kill her? What did they do with her body? Chances are, if they were stupid enough to grab a child and then not know what to do with her, they would have just dumped her body in a ditch and she would have been found.

6. If the burglars ran into an awake child and kidnapped her because she had seen them, they would have had to carry a screaming child away, not a comatose one. We know Maddie was not sedated because her parents told us so.

7. The burglars would not have been carrying chloroform around with them to knock out the child. The only way one of the burglars could have carried the child away in that state is if he accidentally killed her trying to keep her from screaming. Again, easier to run, and where is her body?

8. How did the burglars get into the flat? There is no sign of a break in. If they had a key, then why do we not see the most likely rooms to be burglarized tossed? If one enters into the living room, one would search there and then the master bedroom which they would likely know exactly where it was because they would know the layout of these apartments being a clever burglary ring who accessed keys. Of course, if we believe the later statements of the parents that they left the sliding door open, the burglars could have accessed the flat in that manner but that would still have them ending up in the living room where nothing was touched. We must allow the possibility that the burglar ran into Maddie wandering around the living room and killed her there instead of fleeing, but, again, this is overkill, pun intended, and extremely unlikely to have happened.

9. There was zero evidence of anyone burglarizing the apartment. Not a thing was touched that would lead one to believe burglars were searching for valuables.

10. No fingerprints were left in the flat, but one could claim that the burglars used gloves because this would indeed be done by experienced burglars. But, the Smiths did not note that the man carrying the little girl was wearing gloves nor did Jane Tanner (although, of course, that sighting was an innocent father carrying his own child).

11. If the burglars were working the complex that night, why were there no other burglaries reported occurring that evening? Did all go wrong on the very first one? If the burglars were together when they stole Maddie, why are they phoning each other? If only one stole the child, how many phone calls does it take to get your two friends over to help you?

12. How was Tractor Man eliminated when Scotland Yard cannot investigate in Portugal? He can only be eliminated if it is found it was physically impossible for him to commit the crime that evening. If Portugal still really has him as their main suspect, then he has not been eliminated.

The simple facts remain. There is no evidence of an abduction and no evidence that any sex ring took Maddie and no evidence of a child sex predator having abducted her and no evidence that burglars took Maddie in a botched robbery. Without any evidence pointing in these directions, one cannot even construct a decent theory because a good theory has to be based on evidence. The only evidence-based credible theory to date is that Maddie died in the apartment and Gerry McCann (or a male friend) removed her body and the parents (and some or all of their friends) have not been honest about the happenings of that evening. This is the theory that is held by myself and Sr. Amaral.

The recent media reports are so incredibly idiotic I can only hope it is a continuation of the abominable state of the press today and not yet another sign that Scotland Yard, now reaching the 10 million pound mark in conducting this supposed review of the case, is horrifically incompetent or extremely corrupt.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 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...


Pat Brown said...

I have removed the comment with the link to the Janosch article because I have told this poster before that I do not support his method of analysis and I do not believe he bases his conclusions on evidence. If you are this poster, please refrain from posting his stuff on my site.

Anonymous said...

It is inconceivable that any police force would release such close operational details as those claimed in the Express article. It is is also inconceivable that a professional criminologist would publicise details pertaining to a possible suspect - one who might be facing imminent arrest (supposedly!)

The Express article cites just one source: the "understanding" and the "belief" of Mr Janosch.

All else is hearsay.

I can only conclude that Mr Janosch has rather less 'belief' in his own conclusions than he might be purporting. Why else would he compromise the possibility of apprehending this mysterious man?

But of course this would be to say that Mr Janosch is a straightforward liar.

Anonymous said...

Completely agree with this. The public no longer believe these lies anymore. As every day passes more & more people are finding out what really happened

Anonymous said...

The papers know nothing in my opinion. Both forces investigating have stated they will nt be keeping anyone updated on the investigation as it causes speculation etc. I believe them and have a little bit of faith this time that the parents will be arrested in due time more than likely after the libel trial. Great post as always to pat! U r always hitting that nail! :)

Pat Brown said...

I hope your are right, Anonymous 12:25 but I have a hard time believing Redwood's performances on TV and the spending of millions of dollars would have been necessary if he was really working to prove the McCanns were responsible for what happened to Maddie.

loz said...

I agree with you pat. Would love to know why our govt,media and police lie and cover up for the mcanns.

Zelina said...

Thank you Pat for this and your other posts about this case.

To me, the theory that little Madeleine had an accident and passed away in the apartment is the most believable one. I hope her remains will be found one day so that her brother and sister can have a grave to visit.

I want to know why the parents have been protected by successive British governments. This is IMO, a bigger mystery than the disappearance of Madeleine.

By the way, I should mention that I'm an adult child of a narcissist father and I recognize many narcissistic traits in Madeleine's parents. Gerry in particular uses the same facial expressions and body language that my father would use when blatantly lying to us.

Anonymous said...

People must understand that Scotland Yard has been ordered by the Home Office to investigate an abduction and nothing but an ABDUCTION. SY are not undertaking a root and branch investigation. Please don't expect the McCanns to be investigated SY as this does not adhere to the Home Office remit. It is no surprise that the Portuguese do not want a dual investigation given such a narrow British remit. The short and sweet is available in WORD format in this link:

Anonymous said...

Great post imo the pj are finding evidence agenst the mccanns. they are verry strict on letting info out. I dont believe they are looking in to this tractor man imo that came from some1 connected to the mccanns to make pj look stupid. The pj have said they made parents suspects to early they had to let them go till they could get evedence agenst them and i think that is why they wont let sy in. They are building case agenst them. When u look at every angle and come bk with nothing the only thing left is the ovious.

guerra said...

The judge in the libel trial against Mr. Amaral will soon hand down her decision so it doesn't surprise me that a report such as this comes out now. If the trial was yet to take place you wouldn't have as of yet seen Mr. Redwood on TV telling us about his revelations. I know this sounds strange but all this activity by Scotland Yard was planned to coincide with this trial. Those who have followed this case from its inception have come to realize that the British government for some reason deems it necessary to protect the reputation of this couple; there are one too many coincidences to ignore.

Anonymous said...

The trial is about to restart ! That's why the stupid kind of news came to daylight. Thinking that Scotland Yard used to be a credible police....

John said...

This thesis of a burglary hasard been suggested by Mr Amaral himself in an interview on the French tv channel W9.
He had added that he didn't had the opportunity to study it while he was only at the half of his investigation and because he was dismissed of his mission before the end of it.
Amazingly, he doesn't tell that in his book and his numerous interviews in the Portuguese media...Why?

Anonymous said...

Good point! With his reputation he is prob looking to close the case and carry on saying the pj are wrong. I dnt think the pj or the courts are going to let it go too easily this time.i still think the libel trials conclusion will be the decider of what the outcome of the investigation is. If they lose hw can sy argue the fact that the evidence points to the mccanns as amarals book is based on the files. Thanx for the reply :)

Anonymous said...

Please tell me hw their was a burgulary gone wrong on that night? They had to cover everything that could of happened but none of it adds up to anyone being able to get in.or out without being seen or leaving evidence of that happening with a little girl in their arms asleep.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pat, what can you say. Oh... tomorrow is the 7th do I hear LISBON .... in the background

MSM hype pro-McC keep the ball rolling

On point 10
I was looking through the Roggies, somewhere I hate to go. But there are many interesting points, that with the passing of years, do raise some important issues.
For example - the MAGIC of the MET

Did the MET ever read the Roggies??

Any hows, my point. JT firmly states with clarification that the alleged abductor COULD NOT have been a parent with a child, since both timing and direction are wrong.

How interesting that the MET can discount her sighting, with the lame excuse of a parent, when it was not possible?

But then, who is really looking at the madness of the detail, these days.


Anonymous said...

am so mad with Scotland yard and the government everyone knows it was the mc canns its a complete cover up the should be ashamed all the money on one child its the biggest cover up in history

Anonymous said...

So, if it was a burglary gone wrong, at what time was the window opened? Cannot have been before 9.05 - 9.10 pm, GM was in the bedroom at this time and saw MM asleep. Cannot have been 9.10 - 9.15 pm as at that time Tannerman was walking up the road and would have seen them. Cannot have been 9.15 pm - 9.20 pm, Tanner was walking round to her apartment, can't have been 9.20 pm - 9.25 pm either as Tanner was walking back again.

Can't have been 9.30 pm - 9.35 as MO and RJO were walking round to check the children and MO walked back round to the Tapas again. Can't have been 9.40 pm - 9.45 pm Tanner would have noticed on her way to her apartment, can't have been 9.45 pm - 9.50 pm as O'Brien was on his way back for his meal.

Can't have been any time after 9.54 pm, if the Smith sighting is correct, as the apartment is 6 minutes away from there, Can't have been after 10 pm as KM was back at the apartment by this time.

Anonymous said...

Class! The UK is obsessed with class. How could two Docs every do such a thing? That's the reason why more questions are not asked.

Paul said...

Pat has wiped the floor with this burglary-gang nonsense. And as she pointed out, that came on top of the Romany and Tractor Man absurdities. As a Brit, I am appalled but not too surprised by the Metropolitan Police (aka “The Met” – the normal designation in the UK of “Scotland Yard”). And have no sympathy with the narrowness of the so-called Home Office “Abduction” remit. If you’re an investigator, you review the evidence and where it is lacking, you the pursue lines of enquiry you believe appropriate. No self-respecting police officer should allow his freedom of action and his lines of enquiry to be limited by some bureaucrat. Instead, they’ve been flying off to Portugal on tax payers’ money and wasting time (plenty of overtime and opportunities to play “ain’t it awful” in the hotel bar). Pat has also pointed out (amongst other things) the bizarre behaviour of the McCanns when they became suspects. Kate reportedly refused to answer any questions put to her by the PJ and they quickly scuttled back to the UK – but that is not consistent with believing your child has been abducted. You would do anything, answer any question, jump through any hoop and provide any information you could to convince the PJ to eliminate you from their enquiries, so they could then concentrate on finding the culprits. In its recent “burglary gang” reports, the British press has trumpeted the apparent brilliance of the Met’s review of mobile phone data, contrasting it with the fact that although this information was available to the PJ it was not analysed. With good reason! The PJ had not received satisfactory (or in some cases any) answers to basic questions - get the basics sorted out before indulging in flights of fancy! The fact is the Tapas group need to be re-interviewed and to participate in a reconstruction. The McCanns need to answer every question put to them and volunteer to undergo a polygraph examination. That would clear the air once and for all.

Anonymous said...

IF I was a burglar and looked into a bedroom to see kids sleeping I would then presume there was an adult in the small apartment and proceed to shit myself and get out sharpish. The burglar theory just doesn't wash at all.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 11:21

Best comment yet! ::laughs:: So, true because you would have to be doing really excellent surveillance to know when to slither in and then you would also know children were in the apartment. Otherwise, you would just slip in an apartment, maybe after seeing the couple leave, see kids but STILL think maybe there was another adult there...after all there SHOULD be. If you came later, you could have missed the return of one parent who could be at home...oh, yeah, like when the burglar was hiding behind the door when Gerry came in...oh, wait, too early....yeah, just dumb.

John said...

I have been awaked twice at night by burglars in two différent flats in two different cities.
Twice they did escape as soon as they heard me shouting.
I add that these two flats were located in nice areas.
So, a burglary in the flat 5A doesn't seem to me impossible at all, even in these circumstances.
What I dont get anyway is why a burglar would kidnap a little girl. .. except if the break-in had been done with the intention of kidnapping the child of course.

Anonymous said...

John, a burglary in the apartment isn't unlikely at all, that's one of the reasons it isn't safe to go out and leave your children alone. What is very unlikely though is that a burglar would take a child with them.

John said...


There is a contradiction in your post, I beleive.
"One of the reasons it isn't safe" ... and "very unlikely that a burglar would take a child".
So what could be the risk for a child to be on his own in a flat if a burglar would come in, do you think?
To be hurt or even killed by the burglar?

Anonymous said...

I see what you mean John. But there is always a risk that a burglar would disturb or frighten a child alone in an apartment, less of a risk that they would hurt the child or take them from the building

Pat Brown said...

John, I think this issue is more a case of a parent choosing the safest situation for their children (within reason), the likelihood of the location and the occupants to be a target for crime, and the consideration that criminals can be psychopathic freaks who could, in theory, do something unexpected.

As to the McCanns and the flat and the occupants, the number one issue for the children left on their own is that one could have an accident, become ill, or become frightened and they were not old enough to use a telephone or seek help in a safe way.

Then, the flat was on a corner without an alarm system or security and on the ground. Therefore, it could be an easier target for a sex offender or a burglar than a well-secured third floor apartment.

The McCanns then claimed they left the flat unlocked (I do not believe this) and, if they actually did, they increased the risk to their flat being entered by a criminal.

As to a burglar taking a small child, this is extremely unlikely because kidnapping is a much worse charge than burglary and dealing with a small crying child is not easy and what is he going to do with that child?

ONLY if the burglar also happened to be a child sex offender would he think that grabbing the child was a bonus. Could this have happened? It could have but it would be extremely unlikely and the evidence does not support this occurring.

John said...

Hi Pat.

Apart from the eventuality of fake abduction, that many people take for sure, despite the fact that there is no other similar known case of a fake abduction in such circumstances, as far as I know (people being on holidays in a foreign country), another possibility seems not have been considered seriously enough, imo : I mean a kidnapping on purpose and even on order.
The reasons of such a kidnapping can be numerous. A ransom couldn't be necessary the only one.
It should have been not very difficult to succeed in doing it, considering the vulnerability of this flat (that you have rightfully mentioned) and knowing that it is very easy to anesthetize a child already asleep.
Not difficult neither to get inside this flat without leaving traces (this kind of wooden door can be open without damage when unlocked - despite the demonstration of this 'expert' in the Portuguese documentary ). Of course, even if a kidnapper would have worn gloves, he would have left traces of his dna but such traces have not been searched by police in this flat.

Not difficult neither to get out of this flat without being seen, since the car park was in the dark and most partly hidden from the neighboroud by a dense range of trees.

It is not certain that the little blond girl seen by the family Smith was Madeleine but it is possible. Who was this man? Nobody knows.

A question always wonders me: If people consider that Gerry could have kidnapped his daughter and hidden her body, without being kept not even seen for sure, why do they not consider more cautiously the possibility that any kidnapper could have done the same without being seen and kept?

John said...

When I write 'kept', I mean 'caught' of course...
Sorry, English is not my mother tongue.

Pat Brown said...

John, yes, anything is possible but not probable especially if you study All the evidence. It is the totality of the evidence which points away from a stranger abduction and toward the McCanns. I have discussed the totality of the evidence in my book and on the many blogs here on The Daily Profiler.

John said...


Meanwhile, Portuguese and British polices are still searching for a stranger abduction.

Some people imagine that this couple, the McCann, is more powerful than the President of United States and gives his orders to different governments. Nonsense, obviously.

For me, the only strong and troubling indicias pointing toward the thesis of a fake abduction are the reactions of the two dogs, Eddie and Keela. This must be set in perspective with different elements, anyway.

Amongst them, several studies have demonstrate that the reactions of such specialized dogs can be widely influenced by the voice and the attitude of their master, just because they try to please him.

It seems most probable to me that Harrison and Grime have been called by Portuguese police in order to confirm their suspicions about a possible implication of Gerry and Kate... and Mr Grime did know which flat and which car was the McCann's ones when he made his inspections.

Anonymous said...

Hi!Does anybody believe that Russell O'Brian and Matthew Oldfield might be the "They" Kate reffered to?

Anonymous said...

Also,have other Ocean Club Guests confirmed that the Tapas 9 were seen Leaving the table?

Pat Brown said...

I repeat, John, it is the totality of the evidence, not just the dogs. And the British response to the crime has been bizarre regardless as to why. The Scotland Yard investigation is a massive waste of money and is has not been conducted with proper investigative methods. Clearly, you believe the parents have no part in this crime and that Amaral and I are far off in our analyses and that NSY and the new Portuguese team have some proof there was an abduction which clearly they have not. We will need to leave our disagreement here, John, and not belabor this any longer.

guerra said...

"In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."

The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case."

The above is an excerpt taken from

Then the British government put its foot down. The English police stopped cooperating with the Portuguese police. The British media went into overdrive in libeling Mr. Amaral. Mr. Amaral was removed from the case. But that wasn't enough, politicians decided to accompany the McCanns to the European parliament, giving the impression to the public that the couple was responsible for a child welfare initiative. Then there was Justice Hogg making a heartfelt appeal to that elusive abductor asking him to return Madeleine. Then Mr. Leveson in his public enquiry into the conduct of the Press took it upon himself to disparage the Portuguese police and the case files. Then Scotland Yard at the behest of the British government performs PR for the couple, their best work coinciding with the libel trial in which the McCanns seek to leave Mr. Amaral destitute etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

Pat, this might go some way to answering the questions you put about SY/The Met

There is a lot at stake for SY at the moment, riven with politics. Who knows this might ultimately play towards a favourable outcome...force hands. We'll see!

(Hope the link works!)

Anonymous said...

Yepperz. These three naughty burglars took Maddie and then spread cadaverine all over that holiday apartment, the rental car, the car keys, and Mommy Dearest's clothes.

It's really hard to believe they were able to scam Scotland Yard. The McCann's should be publicly flogged and then imprisoned.

Gambler said...

Hi Pat I checked the blog to see if you'd posted your view on the news police are supposedly heading to Portugal to arrest three burglars in Maddie's disappearance. They talked about it tonight on Nancy Grace. I'm surprised they didn't have you as a guest.(If you were available.) Look forward to your opinion.

Pat Brown said...


I have been tweeting about this today. No, I was not on Nancy Grace because 1) I am no longer on due to the the show no longer providing remuneration or transport for its commentators, and 2) the show will NOT have me on to speak on the McCann case because they have decided to be pro-McCann and pro-Scotland Yard and have been presenting a massive amount of misinformation about the case.

As to this "news," it is coming out of the McCann PR camp. Whether they are spinning a simply rogatory letter to the PJ requesting that they interview these three burglars or whether Scotland Yard has leaked info, the story that Scotland Yard is going to arrest these three men is idiotic. There is NOTHING to arrest these men over, certainly not for making phone calls one evening six years ago. They may want to interview them about their activities that evening, but so what? They cannot arrest them because there is not probable cause, they cannot arrest them because the men are in Portugal, and they shouldn't even be suspects because there is no evidence pointing to them.

The most I have learned from today's "news" is that a good portion of UK and US media outlets should be ashamed to call themselves journalists because they are only spreading gossip from unreliable "sources." Pitiful.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget they had been 'watched' for most of their holiday! Excellent point though, aside from the sarcasm from me. They don't sound like a mastermind criminal gang to me, just the scapegoats needed to influence the proceedings of the Amaral libel trial, and they'll be an extra bonus if convicted, as the McCanns have needed a fall guy from day one, mission accomplished!

Gambler said...

Pat, Thanks for your reply to my questions. To bad your not on Nancy Grace anymore, I like hearing your views. It would be money well spent for them to continue having you.