Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Bollux Media Interviews the Algarve Bogeyman

BREAKING NEWS!  Bollux media has located the Algarve Bogeyman and, over a cup of expresso and  a few smokes, the Algarve Bogeyman has come clean about his criminal activities

Suspect Shirt
Bollux: So, I notice you are wearing a shirt that is very similar to the one that Scotland Yard has released to the media! Don't you think that is a bit dangerous?

Algarve Bogeyman Shirt
AB: No, I am not worried. They can't arrest anyone over here in Portugal and after a few months have passed, they will be back looking for gypsies or burglars.

Bollux: You kind of look like a gypsy.

AB: Right, yeah, true. Well, they will be looking for a sex ring, then.

Bollux: A couple of times you weren't wearing any shirt at all! Were you worried at that time your shirt would be recognized.

AB: No, I was just washing it. Some of the little girls told me I was smelly.

Bollux: Ah, I understand. So, according to reports, you broke in to twelve vacation homes while the the parents were sleeping in the next room.

AB: No, I actually never broke in. Those British parents always leave their front doors unlocked, so I just walked in.

Bollux: And you sexually assaulted five of these children.

AB: Not really, I just sort of looked at them. Wouldn't you think there would have been a big deal made if I was raping little tourist girls in the Argarve?

Bollux: You spoke to some of the parents. Why?

AB: I wanted to practice my English.

Bollux: Is that why you only broke into....excuse me...accessed the flats of British families and not those of Swedes, Germans, or the Dutch?

AB: Sure, that makes sense.

Bollux: So, according to trusted media reports, you sexually assaulted those five girls between 2004 and 2006, maybe took Madeleine in 2007, and then went on breaking into apartments until 2010 but didn't molest any more little girls and then stopped.

AB: Okay.

Bollux: So, did you take Madeleine?

AB: Sort of. When I came through the open front door, I saw Maddie behind the sofa and I pulled her out. She was dead I don't like 'em dead. I got worried that because I had touched her that I could have left DNA and then be accused of killing her, so I picked her up and ran off with her. I dumped her in the back of the trash truck I work on.

Bollux: But, unlike the other crimes where you hit between 2 and 5 in the morning, this was in the evening. Why would you have a trash truck with you?

AB: Oh, right. Yeah, so I took Maddie down toward the beach and dumped her in the sea.

Bollux: The Smith family saw you? They sure got their description wrong.

AB: Well, you know how bad witnesses can be.

Bollux: True. So, what are your plans now that Scotland Yard is looking for you?

AB: I'm going to have another cup of coffee and a cigarette.

This nearly accurate and mostly truthful report was brought to you by Bollux Media and

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 19, 2014

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.


guerra said...

All this latest BS is an attempt to overshadow the interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Porto Canal TV channel. There can no longer be any doubt there is a whitewash in progress, Scotland Yard is as corrupt as they come.

Anonymous said...

In two separate reports of recent years the Met has been accused of being "Endemically corrupt" and "Institutionally racist".

Scum such as Redwood are made to feel right at home.

He can't exonerate the parents, but he can try to assure that the briefings and brown envelopes keep rustling between the media, politicians, police...and other interested parties. That has always been his role, and that is why Rebekah Brooks set up the 'review'.

They know of the impossibility of exonerating the parents, and yet they fear for their conviction (in Portugal). Why would the Media/Met want this lucrative vacuum of justice to ever end?

To that end Redwood is working to prejudice the Portuguese investigation. The 'Smithman' publicity is a case in point. The Smith family had made their identifications, and were due to be requestioned (Amaral was removed). Investigatively they are of course crucial, but judicially they have now been rendered useless (by Redwood).

Surely any half decent defence lawyer would point to the likelihood of the Smith family having seen all of this speculation and therefore being unable to now supply any further useful information. They have been compromised by Redwood's media tactics.

Prejudicial tactics against the Portuguese has been the only consistent feature of Redwood's "work". He is not investigating and he is not exonerating.

He is protecting people considerably higher up the food chain than the McCanns (notably his own boss), and he is maintaining the lucrative relationship that the Met has cultivated with sections of the UK media.

He supplies the copy of prejudice and xenophobia and they suck it up like the parasites that they are.

Redwood doesn't even try to make it subtle. He doesn't need to.

The only hope for justice is in Portugal.

At least, I think so.

Pat Brown said...

Agree, Guerra. Anonymous 2:18 pm...there is no 'need for justice.' I have learned this many times over when I have seen police cases closed, judicially and administratively, with fall guys and falsehoods. The retention of. Polwer, status, and money is far more important to those in high places than truth and justice and the history of the world proves this.

Anonymous said...

I knew it wouldn't be long before SY appeared in the media with some story! Mrs McCann knew about children who had been attacked - she mentioned this in her book.... so this is not news in any shape or form.
I do wonder if Redwood can explain why a sexual predator would change his M.O.
None of the other children was kidnapped.
Madeleine has gone.
Previous attacks occurred in the middle of the night.
Madeleine disappeared before midnight.
The children who had been attacked were 7 and older.
Madeleine was three years old.

Then there is the question of how a smelly bare chested sexual preadator left not a trace of DNA.

MRSFeeX said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barbara said...

Just watched Jane Velez Mtchell's show for a few mins because the intro said they have a suspect in the Mcann case..Jane cut off one guest's mic because she was saying that the Mcann's were the ones who have something to do with Maddy's disappearance..Jane tried to make her sound like a fool, saying what hell those parents have been through, blah blah blah, then cut off her mic and asked Mark Klass to back her up..which he did! UNREAL!

Anonymous said...

On this subject, ''Madeleine'' I have lost the will to live.

From; the Bermuda triangle, aka JT sighting, whilst passing McC&JW chatting, and pining the abduction at 9.25 EXACTLY and therefore giving everyone of the a watertight alibi

To: the MET suggesting she was mistaken it was crèche-dad. Although her Roggie interview firmly confirms it couldn't have been. So was this an attempt by the MET to pat dearest Jane on the head and allow her to quietly crawl off to some corner.

We go full circle to flapping in the breeze. CLUELESS and headless.

What part of the charade MSM plays in it to make the MET aka Redwood look foolish is anyone's guess, he probably doesn't need any help.

Wherever to you go with this tale of woe, you can't move far from the one and only tangible fact the Smith family sighting. As much as you can play musical chairs it's like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic - nothing changes.

The MET have squeezed themselves into a tight corner; after MO's check, before Mrs McCann's check & a sighting from the Smiths.

And yet, there has been no logical explanation of the Smiths sighting, no one YET to step forward to be eliminated, although I suspect creche-dad was actually lost that night and ended up being seen on his fruitless wanderings by the Smiths, rather like JW pushing his child around endlessly, aimlessly & timelessly - hearing and seeing nothing. Seems there was a lot of blokes around PDL that night LOST !

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the only rabbit left to be pulled out of the bag THE LUCKY BREAK.


PS Pat many thanks, nice to hear from you again. Meanwhile with the highest LULL in this saga in years, one wonders what is happening in the Libel case.

Shelley said...


I had to tell you, I found it so interesting.

I was watching Jane Valdez last night. She touched on this new suspect. And what happened really shocked me.

She was talking about these poor parents… blah blah blah

So one of the guests chimes in and is basically like come on, they refused to search, refused to answer questions, left children alone and then started in about the cadaver dogs. Before she could get too much further, she was totally cut off by Jane. Not like her. She usually respects options. IN this case it was like she was hell bent on not letting her go on. She then asked Marc Klass his thoughts. Now this is where I usually see this man speak about what is pretty obvious. At the least that the parents were neglectful by leaving the kids alone but he stood by Jane. Not just a little but almost seemed like he was trying to hard. He said he absolutely does not agree and that these parents have been through hell.

What is wrong with these people? Nancy Grace also supports them. even as much as she speaks out about bad parenting, I expected her to rip them a new one for leaving them alone yet she too acts like being at that restaurant was like Gerry described as being in the back yard. When it would be more like the backyard of the neighbor 6 houses down. We know if anyone else left kids alone Nancy would demonize them. Why not the Mccanns.

Why does the media, even some that are normally outspoken, act like they 100% think the Mccanns are innocent.

Would love your thoughts on that.

Needless to say, along with Nancy… I am now no longer watching Jane Valdez.

I was so angry last night and the woman that was speaking out clearly was too. I even think at one point the muted her mic to ensure she could not say another word.

Shelley said...

I posted my comment before I read the others.

Looks like you and I both picked up on the same thing. I was pissed she didn't want her to speak.

Nancy Grace does the same thing.

I wonder... Has their stations given strict orders not to bash on the parents to avoid a lawsuit

Nancy Grace will tear down anyone that does not do right as a parent. What they did was wrong and I expected Nancy to state that yet she acted like leaving the kids alone was totally normal and safe.

Shelley said...


Have you looked at the Hannah Anderson case? I am very curious your thoughts.

I think the case has been closed but I believe Hannah was more involved.

Most say she was a kid, but that means nothing. Kids kill parents.

I was convinced she was involved after her good morning America interview.

In the middle of talking about fearing for her life and stating that's why she didn't try to signal to the people on the horses.... She says "Jim was trying to start a fire to signal for help"

No one asked anything about that. I was shocked that it was just ignored.

She in my mind "slipped" and no one was smart enough or cared enough to ask "wait, why was he signaling for help?"

Zizi Duarte said...

According to sources in Portugal, this new Yard "development" turns out to be borrowed from the Portuguese police own investigation.

It is nothing but part of the on-going "reputation management" on behalf of child neglecters.

Any news that might be damaging to the McCanns (the father was a well-connected British government medical research scientist) are immediately counteracted by the global Burson-Marsteller (read: Clarence Mitchell - a former head of media monitoring for the British government).

Mitchell's influence extends deep into Scotland Yard via Cameron himself.

Furthermore "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell has recently been nominated by David Cameron as a Conservative candidate in the next general elections. Draw your own inferences (...)

I truly recommend you read about the Chipping Norton Set - see reference below - and analyse the connections. They are all there to muse about.

Clarence Mitchell > Matthew Freud (Freud Communications) > Rebekha Brooks and Charlie Brooks (Cameron's old chum from Eton > the daughter of Rupert Murdoch (Elizabeth Murdoch).... all the way up to the British PM David Cameron who, you will recall, got Scotland Yard's hAndymen into another fine mess...

... Thanks, of course, to Rebekha Brooks and the Sun newspaper campaign...

It is all pure Bollux Media stuff! I totally agree!

It will go on and on ad nauseam! And much more so in the built up to the showdown between the powerful McCanns and their scapegoat and/or nemesis - Gonçalo Amaral.

They are just trying to influence the Portuguese judge their way. Not to worry. :)

Anonymous said...

Zizi Duarte (above) can be found at

Anonymous said...

What is it about the parents that they can get away with suing people who think they are in some way culpable in the disappearance of their daughter?
Why do the authorities tip toe round the parents? It's not as though they are uneducated and unaware of the risks to children.
I wish Scotland Yard would start at the beginning and uestion the obvious people. More than anyone else they SHOULD have been considered suspects.

Anonymous said...

By taking the abduction theory to its absurd conclusions, by investigating everyone and his dog that was anywhere near the area that week, Redwood slowly but surely brings the finger of fate to point firmly in the direction of the only other conclusion; there was no abduction so the tapas 9 ARE involved. I fail to see how any of them can escape now, it's a forgone conclusion. Never can they say that SY didn't check their theory to the nth degree, never can they say that their abduction theory wasn't taken seriously. Redwood has literally, to the point of absurdity, looked into every aspect of an abduction and found that it just didn't happen. If the McScamms have any brains they'll be s******g themselves right now and CM will be wondering if he can afford to cover (lie) for them any longer; remember he doesn't have immunity to prosecution like a barrister does.
It's simply not credible that SY would ignore the original evidence (which is damning) and pursue a line of enquiry in the opposite direction unless they were playing the long game and fully intended to nail the lot of them. Surely a whitewash would be absurd given the evidence against them.The above is what we all hope, let's see if it plays out this way. The end must be in sight.

guerra said...

This is not an investigation. It's a project undertaken to disparage the conclusions of the original investigators, specifically Mr. Amaral. The case files which are online are not that much of a problem because not many people have the patience or the time to meticulously examine them. However, a book which concisely explains why the police arrived at their conclusions, a book which can be read in a day, a book written by the lead coordinator of the investigation, that is a problem.

What Scotland Yard (SY) is trying to do is to provide alternative explanations for the evidence in the case files which casts doubt on the McCann's innocence.

The Jane Tanner sighting which Mr. Amaral described in his book as not credible was problematic, so SY invented the story of a man retrieving his child from the creche to try to convince the public that Tanner actually did see someone.

The sighting by Mr. Smith who was convinced that it was Mr. McCann will be tackled in such a way as to convince the public that it wasn't Mr. McCann.

SY will likely say that a serial child molester killed Madeleine in the apartment because she started to make noise. Why? To explain the reactions of the dogs who detected death and blood in the apartment. They will try to convince the public that this man removed the body from the premises. The reaction of the dogs to the McCann's vehicle will be explained away as being due to cross contamination.

As far as the incongruous statements made by the couple and their friends, well SY found none in their so called televised reconstruction, put more accurately that is the idea they are trying to convey to the public.

Anonymous said...

my god from gypies to burgerls to sex offenders the make it sound like Portugal is an awful place the met will say anything but the truth and that it was the mc cans who are to blame for maddie death isn't it strange how quiet the mc cans are im sure there be lots of sighting of maddie before her anniversary again

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 3:54
I couldn't disagree more. Criminal convictions will never be secured by a process of elimination. The idea that Redwood is whittling down all of the alternatives prior to looking at the McCanns is investigative (and legal) nonsense. Detectives pursue the most viable lines of inquiry first...only then do they cast their nets wider. The elimination of 'all others' is never a viable route because it becomes infinitely open ended.

And legally: "M' had to be the McCanns, cos there was no one else."

No, that just doesn't wash.

Convictions will only ever be secured by proper police work ie. tight forensic details, witness statements and timeline analysis. There were many such positive lines of inquiry left open at the time of the shelving. Redwood is simply ignoring them.

It is not a question of having to disprove the McCann theory of abduction (whether to the media or indeed to an appeals court). The question is one of building a targeted body of evidence that withstands the scrutiny of a court ie. people placed at the scene.

Redwood is not trying to do this. He is simply conjuring up "tanned" bogeymen that pander to the UKs racist media. In PR terms he is playing the long game of saturated bullshit that drowns out all appeals to fact.

No, he isn't seeking to 'whitewash' the McCanns (at least not per se), neither is he likely to ever bring some patsy to court (for then it would inevitably become the parent's movements that determine a defence case!).

All that Redwood seeks to do is all that he has ever done: discredit the Portuguese authorities, compromise their lines of inquiry and generate a media shit storm.

As Hogan-Howe has said...the UK "insists" that the PJ follow their lead.

MRSFeeX said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pat Brown said...

Anonymous at have nailed it. I totally agree that there is no real detective work going on because none of the methodology adds up to proper case handling if one is actually seeking to solve the case; it is all smoke and mirrors.

Pat Brown said...

Shelley, yes, something in not right with the Hannah Anderson case but I am going to guess she is free and clear.

Shelley and Barbara,

As to the media and McCann, I don' they are afraid of lawsuit; they are just jumping on the popular bandwagon now that Scotland Yard has given its blessing to the McCanns and Company and validated the abduction theory. Hence, they don't want to go against Scotland Yard (I have done so and it has made me the target of many who can't believe I think Scotland Yard isn't always the best investigative force on earth - it is like saying anything negative about the FBI - and do I think I know better than this premier police agency?) and they love being able to support parents of missing children as it is so much more heartwarming than accusing them of doing something untoward to their children. Hence, the decision by the networks is to carry the story that sells and makes the highest percentage of the viewership happy. This is why they are not calling me to come on even thought they KNOW I am probably the most knowledgeable person in the US on the McCann case.

So that is why the one guest was tarred and feathered and Marc Klaas is going along with the program; he wants to be called back.

If one stands up for truth, one can expect to often get slapped down for doing so and many who earn a living in broadcasting don't wish to bite the hand that feeds them.

Anonymous said...

MRSFeeX, I don't know about anyone else, but I find your posts are absolutely incoherent, and please, do not tar all of us Brits with the same brush as football hooligans and the McCanns!

Anonymous said...

@PAT, its been a con to manipulate the public, it was three men, that has turned out to be one?
Which probably means he has three personalities, and sy need to interview all three?
Do me a favour, and the maccanns had the nerve to slag off amaral?
So hes going to waste money on a man that dosent abduct children, only assaults them because their English?
Just when I thought this couldn't possibly get more insane?
Bravo the twins must be a diferent nationalalilty from their sister?
Dumb is a understatement of the year, and they call that a break through!

Anonymous said...

mr andy redwood does look so stupid today after saying a major breakthrough and Portugal police knew all about the suspect stupid met the will say now he took madeline case over mc cans in the clear it makes me sick to my heart how there get away with it

Anonymous said...

Does anyone understand why some reports on samples in the pj files are nowhere to be found and why dna findings in burgau were not given any importance when they place JT there along with murat? Or is it so likely to find people of the same maternal line all the time?? Is it really that inconclusive? The SY can't beat logic, it's impossible for the mcs not to be involved. But if they were innocent... They would still be silly, arrogant, negligent people who should be prosecuted for bullying public opinion. Why should anyone honest have to be molested by their ludicrous fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

@PAT, something of interest about the tanner woman and the smiths sighting, note in both cases, the man they described wasn't wearing glasses, in the Gerry lookalike neither wore glasses and Gerry dosent wear glasses, I was mythed how tanner pointed a finger at murat?
Tanner has never explained this missing detail in both sightings?
I have wonderd if this was the reason the maccanns didn't use the smiths e fit?
The other problem for anyone giving such information, is being sued, I have realised the smiths are not that stupid, when one considers their up against powerfull lawyers and a massive fund, this isn't normal, and there isn't a case like it in other genuine abductions, put it anothrr way pat, there isn't usualy a group of odd people surrounding strange alibis?
they don't have a company set up so quick either!
In all this time ive only seen a image manipulated by press, and who is manipulating that propaganda, the maccanns team.
There isn't no progress at all, its a charade and a sick one at that, I would call time on this and start to ask some serious questions about this show boating by the maccanns.
Its time to pull them all in instead of pussy footing around with more bollux as you put it pat.
What I would like to know, is why the fund wasn't used to keep them in Portugal, instead of parading to the press in Britain?
And why there wasn't a fund set up in Portugal for a more direct search, even stranger, why didn't they ask amaral for a donation in that search, if being suspect didn't bother them at all?
Liars that selfishly hinderd every chance they had, and used public opnion in their personal vendettas, still abusive in what they have done, they knew all along some one will work this out, how did they know there was any crime committed to start with?
In contradiction they said the dogs are unreliable?
So how can they say some one murderd their child in that apartment then removed the body?
Isnt that what amaral thought?
But hang on a minute, this contradicts their checks if it is a stranger, meaning they didn't check at all for all this garbage to have taken place?
Redwood assiting red herrings what next!

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile Andy Redwood has said a couple of very interesting things. Words to the extent that Madeleine might have not been alive when she was removed from the apartment and that "abduction" does not follow with all of their thinking in this case ...

IMO they [NSY and PJ] are fully aware of all [circumstantial] evidence and have a pretty good idea, who [multiple] might be criminally involved. However, that was Gonçalo Amaral's and Ripeiro's thinking already too 2007/2008. IF NSY are indeed ELIMINATING possible other "suspects", that's IMO a very wise route. If ever this case will before a judge & jury, there's an army of lawyers at the ready to try and pull the carpet from under everyone's feet. Eliminating ALL other possibilities does not leave room for such defense tactics.

Also the fact that British CPS has been to Portugal three times is significant. As is the fact, that there seems no hurry to find Madeleine and that last CrimeWatch did NOT feature the age progressed image, yet only the picture of a 3-year-old Madeleine ...

Anonymous said...

@PAT, to prove it wasn't amaral that thought the maccanns were involved before he came along, there was doubt cast in what graham McKenzie observed, how on earth the maccanns missed the point about this statement is even more odd in itself?
This was well before amaral wrote his book, so it is untrue that it was amaral that caused any damage?
More ignorant it was tanner who mislead the investigation, and a journalist who thought there was a coincidence in the sohom case, not the police, that's why the maccanns were not made suspects straight away?
Amaral was very correct about any red herrings, this came to light in the form the maccanns did not put out the e fit by the smiths at a time they were no longer suspects?
This reveals even a more sinister plot to frame murat for a abduction?
Its a well known fact kate knew how to manipulate the press, shes been doing this for ages, in all her red herrings, and sitting back watching innocent people take the flack for her lies.
What I mean by innocent, is trying to pin a crime on anyone she dosent like, knowing there isn't no forensic proof in doing so?
She is doing exactly the same as a troll would do, without any proof!
It seems madam butterfly is a victim of her own lies, and has become her own allegations in her own book, a tribute to abusing amaral at any level, damaging his reputation through a contradiction of her own making along with all the invention of her own red herrings and lies.
Does she truly think the twins are that dumb, they can point out if she didn't want them to know anything, why write a book in the first place, and ban some one elses?
After all she hasn't written anything new, that hasn't already been stated and well before any result can be resolved, that's libel because she carnt determine the end without proof?
Unless she was involved, no mystery in her book, just guilt.
And a lot of sucking up to people that take her bull seriously?
Not everyone is brain washed by her manipulations, I describe her as very devious and spiteful, more in line with a abusive and erratic personality, than anything of a doctor, shes a snob and her book shows this in how she looks down on others, and only applies kindness with power?
Deluded about status and to whom warrants the truth, so anyone who disagrees is a liar, yet how can she determine that if she dosent know what happened, that equaly makes her a liar also, when clearly she has no evidence to determine any lie in what people might think, and its only natural to ask about events that make no sense at all?
Does that mean im dishonest about what I find strange, and others before me!
Perhaps I should talk to the priest they confided in to determine that logic?

Anonymous said...

Anon @11.26
If Redwood is conducting this affair legitimately, why is he making any comment at all about the direction of his inquiry. Of course he knows the score, but this isn't a game of peekaboo.

The McCanns are lawyered up to the teeth. They live in a permanent state of readiness to defend themselves against accusations from any quarter. There is no cat and mouse game to be played here. Either the evidence exists (and is acted upon) or not.

So long as Redwood is not prepared to question the T9 under caution then I believe that the legal advice can only ever be the same: He has nothing. (Assuming he's looking at all)

I don't mean to be disrespectful here! But this case has rattled around the media and Internet for so long that I think there is a tendency to believe that is through these outlets that an outcome will be determined or enacted. But it won't. Decisive outcomes will be achieved in forensic labs and interview behind closed doors.

Decoding the nudges and winks may be a distraction, but they decide nothing. Why should Redwood drop clues like some cheap parlour game? The McCann's lawyers won't be fooled for one minute.

I'm not a lawyer!! But I don't believe that your interpretation of the need to eliminate all others before pursuing the McCanns is correct. If the case were ever presented to court then it would already have passed through the CPS. They would have scrutinised it in every detail, and seen in it enough evidence to present to a judge/jury.

Reasonable doubt does not mean crying from the dock: "But what about Tractorman!" (Or whoever else!!) that is no defence at all (and probably inadmissable).

It would fall to the McCann's lawyers to disprove the case presented by the CPS. Not the other way around. I think that any judge would be very sharp on this.

I really hope I'm wrong about Redwood. But at the moment I can't see it!

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat!Good to read your Blog!
Wonderful contributions!

I have read that "crèche dad" is a British holiday maker from,you guessed it,Leister.


Anonymous said...

On today's news about social services in uk taking kids from foreign parents to do business with adoption... How about knocking on british neglecting parents doors and do right by real defenseless children such as the mccann twins. Something they should have done from the start, not spending millions protecting offenders. How about start a reverse campaign, flooding uk newspapers with the real facts on the case! Has to start in the usa, where mccanns lawyers won't feel the same support. Just a thought. Thank you Pat for real, honest insights.

Anonymous said...

Puddleduck said:

"I suspect creche-dad was actually lost that night and ended up being seen on his fruitless wanderings by the Smiths, rather like JW pushing his child around endlessly, aimlessly & timelessly - hearing and seeing nothing"

If I may.

If Crecheman (once known as Tannerman) ever existed at all, and was as you suspect the man the Smith family saw having lost his way - Why would Andy Redwood still be looking for him?

Redwood, one would imagine would have established if this was the case when speaking with Crecheman. If not, Redwood is more stupid than he already appears.

And apart from anything else, Crecheman has long hair - the guy in Smith sighting does not!

That said I don't believe there has ever existed a Tannerman/Crechman.

A guy who holidayed in PDL - and must know that he is the 'face of' the Madeleine Website, and has never brought this to the attention of the police or contacted the site/McCanns to get the matter cleared up?

Don't think so!

Shelley said...

Scotland Yard is really looking more like bumbling idiots everyday. I mean, how many “new” suspects are they going to release. Not to mention more are not even new from what I understand but just people that the PJ ruled out since they felt the parents were responsible.

Now its “two bogus charity workers”?

Really? What on earth do Gerry and Kate Mccann know. There is no case ever that has had LE trying so hard for so long to put out so many BS leads when the evidence points to one conclusion and where mom and dad didn not search or do anything to find their child.

Scotland Yard you are becoming a laughing stock. Maybe not by everyone yet… but you are getting there.

Let’s see what tomorrow brings. Maybe a one arm bandit!

Shelley said...

I think the next defense the McCanns should use is just that they have really really REALLY bad luck.

Yep, looks to me like they just happened to have such bad luck that on top of having their child kidnapped during a 30 minute break with people coming and going with those frequent checks, they also had such bad luck, that they rented the only hotel room were someone not only died, but was murdered (dead bodies would not be in a closet and behind a couch if they died of natural causes) were then again so unlucky that when they rented a car about a month later, that they were given the only car that again, not only did someone die in, but was someone that was well, likely murdered (again, dead bodies usually do not end up in the trunk if it was natural causes).

So yep, I think we need to now be thinking “poor Gerry and Kate…… Such bad luck”

Anonymous said...


I too am gobsmacked by the latest "suspects" who - we are led to believe are now bogus charity workers who decided that kidnapping was more to their likeing. Of course this pair also managed to enter and exit the apartment without leaving a trace of themselves.
I wonder how stupid the McCanns think the rest of the population is?
Just imagine - someone enters an apartment without touching a thing and lifts a sleeping child from her bed without touching the bedsheets. Maybe a magician??

Shelley said...

Pat and the rest of the readers….

What do you all make of the theory of Chris Spivey that Madeline is buried on Murats property?

Now, Chris has stated that he does NOT think that Murat is involved, so that would implicate someone or well, Gerry and Kate themselves burying her there. Which.. well we have heard crazier theories like burglars taking her…..

Just curious what the rest of you think about this?

Shelley said...

And don’t forget these 2 did kidnap Madeline and also managed not to wake the other 2 sleeping kids. They are just such “sound sleepers”. Madeleine was too. All such sound sleepers that had nothing to do with being sedated.

And the sad thing the McCanns are getting away with it. I see people defend them all the time. They have some power to have people covering for them. Even as simple as their phone records from that night. They never had to produce those. If this was an average person, those phone records would have been delivered.

Anonymous said...

The murat property was searched and pj took it very seriously as he was a suspect, they even got the original blueprints to check the hidden room originally planned but inexistent. Nothing was buried in the garden. They also checked other estates as murat managed several properties. Mccanns clearly tried to frame murat at some point with tanner's help. Then the usual I-said-it-but-lets-pretend-I-didn't from kate. Probably everyone involved knows if they contradict each other police can't pin it on anyone, safer than all agreeing.

Anonymous said...

Pat, one thing confuses me: why did gerry and kate did that strange prayer position in the bedroom with the presence of GNR, and before that gerry did it also at the reception when police arrived. Is that normal behaviour when grieving?? Is it something you've seen as a profiler? Seems almost like a choreography. Was it to divert attention from something? But twice?

Anonymous said...

Well put, if this was anyone else their phone records... Wait a minute, Pistorius' detailed texts were released today at his trial!! So any police force and any phone company can do the same! Oh wait, murats calls were also taped and released! What happened with T9 calls and txt since the event?? The british embassy "happened".

Anonymous said...

If mccanns are guilty:

Why didn't they say they had a baby monitor, they've heard noise and maddie was gone? They would use payne's device. They would come out as less neglecting and keep their dinner alibi. Also adding strength to abduction scenario.

Maybe they couldn't tell such a story because:

1 - they are innocent (I'm shocked believe me)
2 - they had compromised earlier with something they did and was witnessed.

Couldn't risk to involve everyone in the group? Who? Diane? Or the waiters?

It's quite amazing to read how witnesses say they saw t9 members search for maddie at a time they were suppose to still be dining. This is exactly the purpose of a reconstruction, getting the exact timeline, something the mcanns are still afraid.

guerra said...

Anonymous March 25, 2014 1:16 AM

According to your logic, defence lawyers would argue their clients' innocence by claiming that if they were guilty they would have come up with a better alibi.

Don't you know that the reconstruction was already televised by Scotland Yard? Everything is shipshape.

MRSFeeX said...

Why was she not missing from the beach?
More logic.
Why They didn't wanted a 'stranger' Nanny at nighttime to look for the children?
Safe and secure resort..

Why it is only British?
Keypersons, witness etc

Kate in her book mentioned the 'British were targets'
All British seems to working in the same proffesion, the same age, and even their children are..

I mean.. a hospital feels safe to.. but even there people can go in/out and security is needed..

So.. mabye there was advertising for cheap holiday.
U.K special. in a media and medical proffesion.

Or is it like..
Well..Chosen because very U.K minded..
The German people do love The
And the Netherlands love Spain and France.

I only had low budget holidays.
Nice to meet different people from different country's.

But we never spend much time inside, only breakfast.
Even lost on of our children at the last day..( almost ten)
On the way to the beach..
Scaring, I can say, but found within 2.5 ours.
Even safe.. I couldn't sleep well the last night.
*So a Maddie and me story..*

I don't know why I this case interest me.
The Mccan behaviour?
The massive media?
The U.K standards?
The horrorselling in Europe?

So S.Y think she could be'not being alive'
Mabye 'taken bij nine'
Amaral was right then!

In the crimewatchversion in Europe there 'changes' in the story.
No need any proof of an abduction as a fact.
Or bring the dogs in.
More about the nice family.

But you can call the police for any look alike.
!Get your 15 moment of fame!

(Well, that will help)
Her coloboom probaly 'healed'
Mabye in the maeanwhile during the search for Madeleine many peadorings are found and can take a stand in court.
Would be great.
Something good out of this mess.
But parents with a 'Maddie look alike' seems to have more reason to be scared than the peadoclann

Anonymous said...

@PAT, It was said Gerry wasn't wearing a watch, on the evening and mobiles were left in the apartments according to phone records, how then did they phone relatives and know the exact time kate did her last check?
Also note kate dosent wear a watch in a lot of her photos, neither does Gerry, like you said their habits don't usualy change?
Was this the reason the times were written on a sticker book before the police arrived, if Gerry was at the bar at the time of the smith sighting, kate wasn't because she set out before that time, and it wasn't until 10.22 a call went out to the police?
Now if redwood thinks the timeline puts the abduction much later, this throws kates version into question about her alleged search in that apartment, and narrows any event past the time kate searched, and hinders gerrys version in what he said about seeing his daughter alive on his check?
Which means the maccanns would of bumped into a alleged dead body in that apartment had a stranger murderd that child?
There is another problem about the scent of a death also or blood in diferent locations, its in areas the maccanns were in, and that takes a lot longer in any narrow opportunity to exist?
One simple question to this pat, how did any stranger remove that body without being seen before and after the chaos? If there is diferent locations of a death, it means some one struggled with the body alone after 2 hours of a death? this makes mike olfeilds version credible and why he never noticed anything if the body was behind the sofa, that does make sense in the time to give of that scent of death, notice also the smell would of been in line of the window being opend to let the smell out, now since Gerry and kate didn't do the checks together, which one struggled with the body alone?
Since the smell of death was mostly on kates clothes and her fingerprints on that window, can she explain why intruders struggled to remove a body if it was organised?
And they didn't notice any smell in view of the window being opend as a alleged red herring?
This is only a theory based around dubious information that has never made any real sense, not saying im right, just trying to look at this from a diferent view.

MRSFeeX said...

Well continue 'Maddie and me'
We returned home safe.
The next day, anyway.

There where woman tourist killed and raped a few years Alanya 1995
So.. probaly that's why?? mabye the uniforms came in quick to search the beach.
It was really scaring.

But anyway..Different standards..
I remember children selling things after dark, old eyes,they had probaly younger than mine, at that time, selling things.
Not wanted.. near the eating tourist by the managers.

Our routine was bad at our holiday, we never returned before ten,in the dark, till the last day because the last day, anyway..

It was years before the Mccann.
I never seen such a massive media alert for a local, or national missing one.

Abducted children, well...
Still alive,,
Then the statistic turn to parents crossing boarders.
Then you have to 'abduct them back'
Or..hope justice will return them..
The last one.. well
It takes years to sort it out.

But hey.. S.Y do claim to have names..
It is a criminal case..
Leak to the media.
Fall asleep...

So my children are blond to.
They love blond children..
Because their parents love their children to..

So.. my children are grown now.
They had a good time then, still remember the last day, in a different way.
Almost forgotten.
It is.. in my mind..memory the strongest one I have from a holidaymoment..

Well.. when I was a child myself.
I had a sister who couldnt find her way back after going to the toilet.
She always had a tradition to get lost.
Almost forgotten, anyway.
Grown up fine.
Even travelled more than we do.
So statistic on missing persons..
Or young children not natural dead.
S.Y can tell those..
I supose..