Sunday, May 25, 2014

How Much Power do YOU Have? How Much Power do the McCanns Have? Take the Test!

After my last few posts questioning the validity of the Scotland Yard "review" into the McCann case, a number of people have responded with two issues: one, that the McCanns don't have that much power, and, two, we the people, have a great deal of power which means it would be ridiculous, with all the outrage about Madeleine not receiving justice, that Scotland Yard would try to dupe the citizens of the UK and the people of the world with a whitewash of the case. I say the McCanns have tremendous power and we have little to none.

Let's start with the McCanns: I cannot think of ONE case of a missing child in the world where so many huge names and politicians have stepped up to the plate to protect them from a police investigation. Yes, I have seen small examples of probably guilty parents of missing children getting some media attention (Baby Lisa's parents got a nice kiss-their-butt program by Dr. Phil, but, then again, Dr. Phil is an ethically challenged TV host who is all about ratings) but that is about it. However, when the McCanns made phone calls, people came running from high places to give them assistance. And they have continued to make phone calls and get assistance in the most incredibly huge ways.

Now, here is a test for us to take to prove both the power of the McCanns and our own power. As you are sitting here, tweeting with #McCann and commenting on McCann Facebook groups. close your computer and pick up your phone. Who are you calling about this case? one. While the McCanns have dozens of numbers to call, numbers to people with power, you've got no one. Even I don't have too many useful numbers to call (a few TV producers who are not going to put me on to talk about the case just because I called; it doesn't work that way in TV unless I really had some scoop) and I can call my agent (I already did that because  Gonçalo and I want write an english language book together on the McCann case: we couldn't get an American publisher to touch it as of yet due to lawsuit issues). Okay, so I have little influence; you probably have none. Every parent of a missing child I can think of to date - pretty much none. The McCanns - unprecedented and off-the-charts ability to get support for their cause. 

So, if you think the public - and our online blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking - is going to sway Scotland Yard into doing the right thing, you are sadly mistaken. Why even the media almost always blocks comments about the case and unlike early media, I am no longer allowed to speak on the case on television. Someone is controlling the message....and it isn't us. If the McCanns ever going to go down, it will be because the political winds have changed and someone more powerful than them and their allies has changed the rules of the game.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 25, 2014

 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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

'' The McCanns - unprecedented and off-the-charts ability to get support for their cause. ''

Forget going to your phone, as you suggest. Imagine yourself 10pm at night in another country. How many and how much media interest do you think you, via your networking & friends generally could you engage!

Yet before Madeleine was missing 12 hours, such an international response had been started. It was strange then and has remained so over seven years.

Seven years on nothing has changed.

As the MET issued their last statement, referring to Kate and Gerry.

Just as as well have been Kate and Wills!


askingthedogs said...

It's not power, Pat. It was mainly just a combination of two factors:

1. Disappearances of young British children on holiday being so rare.

2. Madeleine herself perfectly matching public and media prejudices: female, white, blonde, pretty.

Sure the McCanns and their friends already knew many members of the political/media class, so generating huge publicity quickly was not difficult for them - they already had many contacts. They couldn't have anticipated quite how much would be generated because it soon reached unprecedented levels, and needed to be managed.

But seven years on the truth is that most of the country just doesn't care as much about the case as we do. They did when she disappeared - most people would, that's human nature - but when it became clear she wouldn't be found or anyone accused of the crime they lose interest.

Madeleine is one child. In the UK we still have the architects of the Iraq invasion turning up on TV. Everyone knows what they did, but the BBC still invites them to appear on programmes.

If people have become apathetic about war criminals, they'll not have the same level of passion for the McCann case they had in 2007.

But few expected the explosion of public interest in phone hacking in 2011, and it quickly swamped even Rupert Murdoch. Even he was powerless.

It could still happen again in the McCann case - for all we know all it might take is one spark. Remember how quickly public opinion changed in a few weeks in August/September 2007.

Anonymous said...

The vile McCanns from day one have had the backing of Primeministers,the mainstream media,so called (z)list celebs,so called child experts,even nutjob Kate is now ambassador for charity MissingPeople,you couldn't make it up,there is no way DeadwoodRedwood is going to arrest them while all those braindead morons back them.R.I.P dear Madeleine.

Anonymous said...

@PAT, You are spot on pat, power has gone beyond a rational open debate about common sense, and the focus of real evidence?
It appears the spin to save reputations, took priority over finding this child, and to damage anyone who has beleif in the truth, like yourself pat, in reality sy had no evidence of a drug used in any abduction, the maccanns denied this suggestion, because gerry did not request, a dog to do a drugs search?
Like you said alot of evidence has been destroyed, and why the toy wasnt bagged for tests, is very questionable over a abduction, that has no place in any theory after traces are destroyed by a suspect?
Especialy in contradiction to the beleif a intruder drugged their daughter, when no evdence of a unexplained bottle or rag was ever found to suggest chloroform?
Slow man has took up jogging, and now has record speeds that are beyond his capabilities?
What a insult in a 3 minute oppurtunity?
But sadly im now a nutter for looking at any errors that are beyond possible?
And i should imagine i will be inline for a gag at the end of this farce!
You keep fighting pat, good work.

Pat Brown said...

Asking the dogs:

I am not talking about general interest and apathy in a situation where no particular interest is at stake: I say groups getting together and fighting can have an impact (often more seen in racial and religious issues) but a case that is beyond anything I have seen.

You are correct that the case had two very intereating factor for media attention: nothing like a kid going missing on holiday in another country and that kid being cute and blonde like Maddie; it helps the parents are doctors and not hippie drug users. However, the kind of stories the media put out in these cases are different than the way the media is now being controlled and the way money is being spent in outrageous sums for the review of one old cold case and how many politicians and big names have gotten involved.

Pat Brown said...

PS. Ask the Dogs; Davies had a lot of power; he had backing from one arm of the press (and who knows who else).

Who do we have on Maddie's side with enough power to go against whoever is behind their support? I certainly don't, Amaral doesn't, Tony Bennet doesn't, and I haven't seen anyone with huge credibility step up to the plate that could force a change of course.

askingthedogs said...

The Lindbergh case has some similarities I think, Pat, though obviously the comparison is far from perfect.

In the McCann case I think we underestimate just how involved lawyers have been, and still are. Their involvement has influenced the Met investigation.

I don't think it's 'power': it's lawyers.

Murdoch had lawyers too, but was still powerless in 2011 when public interest grew to unmanageable levels.

I think that should be our inspiration.

Pat Brown said...

True, Ask the Dogs, but lawyers don't have Scotland Yard run a fake review.

I dunno, I hope you are right, but the sad point is, unless they can find Maddie's body and prove the McCanns moved her, the case is still dead in the water which, again, Scotland Yard knew from the very get-go.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

asking the dogs, I used to agree with you vis-a-vis the reasons for the interest in the Mccann case. Also, in addittion to points one and two that you gave you could add three: the media suspected the Mccanns were guilty (as parents often are in these cases) and ran the story of 'poor parents lose child', knowing all along that the worm might turn, and it would be a great story and best seller if the parents turned out to be the perpetrators.

However, after studying this case more closely I came to believe that this story was deliberately put into the press by very powerful people; and that the Mccanns are connected (for whatever reason) to some very, very powerful people. I personally tend to think that what we see in the mdeia is a power struggle, or game of black mail, between various important parties.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I agree with what you say. There has been no other case like this and you reallay do ask the right question. WHY?
The McCanns have repeatedly ignored all possible sightings and couldn;t get out of Portugal fast enough yet they said they wouldn;t leave until Madeleine was found.Now we hear Kate goes back "quietly" about twice a year. This is one thing that amazes me.... if it was the last place I saw my child you would have to drag mekicking and screaming out of the country.
Someone who was in a high place was ready to step in to help these people at very short notice - and with huge consequences. How does your average doctor get in touch with Carter Ruck exactly? How does your Mr & mrs Average manage to persuade a government to spend money on a review of a case that the PJ already feel they investigated as well as they were allowed?
All very Fishy imo.

Anonymous said...

its about time sy started listening to the people its our money paying there wages for this suppose review david Cameron its about time you listen to the public as well someone please stand up for maddie its not about kate Gerry am sick lisrening about them

askingthedogs said...

Thomas, if there was a connection to powerful people would the tabloids have gone so over the top in 2007/8?

They had top legal and PR firms working from September 2007 onwards but even so it still took ten months or so to tame the papers.

Isn't that a contradiction?

askingthedogs said...

I know the papers never actually did much analysis, and no columnist was ever brave enough to explain the absurdity of what Mitchell was doing, but the papers nevertheless did not completely follow his desired line until the investigation was shelved in July.

Isn't that evidence that there weren't powerful connections?

askingthedogs said...

Who do we have on Maddie's side with enough power to go against whoever is behind their support?

Tough one, Pat.

The paper that Davies writes for was the only one that showed any sense in 2007 about Madeleine's case. So maybe they will consider the case one day, but I doubt anyone will while the investigation is still active.

If, for example, someone were to publish an article urging police to search the location you have mentioned the implication of the request would be obvious, and potentially trouble for the paper.

In October the Sunday Times did print an article when they had something definite they could say, but what could a paper print about the investigation that wouldn't carry the risk of being considered libelous?

It's a unique and tricky case isn't it.

askingthedogs said...

They could write about the way the investigation is being spun. Hopefully somebody in the press will.

But such an article would also be attacking the police themselves, so it would still potentially be risky.

Papers and journalists don't take too many risks these days do they - there aren't many like Nick Davies left.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Ask the dogs: You are quite right about the press in 2007. I remember it well, there was a huge vilification of the Mccanns as everything started coming out about the dogs and Madeleine's DNA etc. Also, another factor which negates what I believe, is that at one point, British police suggested bringing in Eddie and Keela. Very clearly, not everyone was on message.

However, I'm sure that there is evdience to show that this story was deliberately put into the press. I think, on the night of May the 3rd, it was the Telegraph that published a big article on the case, only two hours after her dissapearance! How did they know she wouldn't simply turn up? Also, I think the Mccann's wanted the story brought into the press. didn't they phone Sky News?

I know all of these ideas are hugely contradictory and don't make a lot of sense. And I really don't understand the strange mechanics behind the scenes.

But maybe at the begining, whoever it was that is so powerful in this case, wanted to keep a low profile. The introduction of the Mccanns into the press would have scared them; but, what would really have worried them was seeing the Mccanns about to be convicted. At that point, they would have been OBLIGED to act, and start heavily interfering, all at the cost of revealing (behind the scenes, to the powers that be) their involvement.

Like I say this is all just specualtion and could be nonsense. It's simply that I want to try and understand the baffling contradictions behind this case. Like I say, looked at from the perspective of two opposing factions, there would always be one party who wanted this story, and indeed the evidence against the Mccanns, in the public domain, as this then puts more pressure on the other side to comply. For example, the efit that was released of Gerry by Redwood. Perhaps this was a wanrning to someone about the direction the case could go, if somebody or other didn't cooperate.

All pure specualtion and quite possibly a load of rubbish!

Anonymous said...

Maybe some other extraordinary event was rolling in PdL when Madeleine's has die. Maybe her death was covered to cover up something else.

When someone has so much protection one has to wonder…

Maybe her death was not an accident…

Where is the UK guests list that were in PdL during those fatidic days…?

Who knows exactly who were there and who flight straight home after little girl has disappear?

That list of names could bring some light over this obscure affair… Suddenly things make sense if you're became able to find out who is who and what were those persons doing at that time ? In doubt ask the dogs!

Come on this is not about Madeleine since 3rd May 2007! Get the list!

Anonymous said...

"So, if you think the public - and our online blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking - is going to sway Scotland Yard into doing the right thing, you are sadly mistaken. "

For that very reason Pat I am bowing out of all of this. I don't think that the PJ/SY outcomes were necessarily cast in cement, so I have a modicum of hope. But this is tempered by a realistic view of just how difficult it will be to bring charges.

People such as Mitchell, Gamble etc have no interest for me. Sociopaths have always littered the corridors that they have walked - politics, law and the media. The momentary satisfaction of perhaps being 'vindicated' by their unmasking is almost as insane a pastime as what Mitchell himself does.

All that matters is that a defenceless child should be accorded justice.

My former local MP was also a prominent member of Blair's cabinet (and a very genuine person). I know that through a shared third party connection it might have been possible (in such dire circumstances) for me to make that connection. I think so.

I am sure that the counsel I received would have been to put all my trust in the officers dealing with the case...bolstering my faith in a positive outcome..on the ground.

Why the McCann interventions were so different I don't know. I can only reflect upon the Nature of the people involved. Birds of a feather: exploitative and dissociated.

Not giving up...just switching 'strategy'.

Anonymous said...

Hi pat, I think that because this happened abroad there was unprecedented interest.The Mc Canns knew people who knew contacts in the media etc.I think if you are an organised and focused person ,it's easy to contact everyone possible to help.Just saying I have my local MPs mobile number in my phone from when they called me with a response from an issue they were assisting me with .im just an ordinary joe and at the end of the day anyone with intelligence would ring around and shout from the rooftops!

Anonymous said...

Hi pat, just to clarify what I was trying to say in my post above.I read your blog regularly and have great respect for you and your opinions,however I do believe this case became a media machine that turned into a monster.I think people in high places such as Gordon brown assisted to save his face .. Showing care about a missing English girl who's father is a scot like himself etc. I don't think anything sinister occurred regarding who was contacted and who helped. I believe it occurred due to one set of circumstances ,people the Mc canns knew and who those friends and contacts knew!I don't see these people coming out to support them now .Regarding anything else that is sinister or doesn't add up in this case if I were to type my opinions on that I would have repetitive strain injury!

Anonymous said...

@PAT, I have wonderd for ages what kate and gerry wanted from the public?
Ive watched various interviews the maccanns have done on various shows and tv spots?
Not once have i seen any of their freinds that were there that night appear to support this campaign?
Now considering they used their statements to bolster a abduction, why then are they excluded from tv, to share what they beleive?
There is very little from this group, and for some reason there is something holding them back in this story to talk further about what is alleged to be true?
This suggests the freinds cannot be trusted to talk in the company of the maccanns on tv?
All we get is this misleading episode by two parents amaral suspected of lying, why would the maccanns deviate over this strange area if their freinds are honest?

guerra said...

Another thought came to mind. People have described Scotland Yard's revelation, that Tanner's sighting was of a father carrying his daughter back from the creche, as a "genius move" and that it destroyed Gerry McCann's alibi. If you're describing Mr. Redwood's declaration as a "genius move" then what you are implying is that creche dad doesn't really exist, and that he was invented by Scotland Yard. If creche dad does exist then either SY did good detective work or they were lucky that said person finally decided to come forward; it's no "move" at all on anybody's part. So, my question is how is a person who doesn't exist who can't be produced in court going to destroy someone's alibi? Is someone going to take the risk in court and claim that he is creche dad?

What Mr.Redwood did is eliminate a problematic sighting and give credibility to Jane Tanner, i.e. she did see someone. And since all this activity on the part of SY is meant to feed a story to the public and not to try anyone, SY need not produce creche dad; they don't have to produce anything for that matter.

Yes indeed it is a "genius move."

Pat Brown said...

Yes, Guerra, the creche dad revelation, if made up, kills credibility for police in prosecution. However, eventually exonerating the McCanns, it works. It clear Jane and it clears the McCanns of collusion with Jane. Those who think the focus on the Smith with the e-fit means they want the public to recognize Gerry as Smithman is likely only something those heavily involved in this case would think; those who are Joe Public will just see Scotland Yard looking for a white man carrying a child on the streets - could be another creche dad or local or white abductor who is similar in looks to Gerry but isn't Gerry. E-fits are only so good; I would not necessarily say the e-fit is Gerry nor even that the Smiths are right in that they think it was Gerry after they saw him deplaning; I find it is likely to be him because Gerry looks ENOUGH like the e-fit, he isn't alibied for that time, and most of all, the McCanns denied Smithman could be the abductor (until later in the book when they said, okay, but only if he is also Tannerman).

I think the general public will buy a final concocted story because it is coming from a premier police agency. They haven't studied the case or the files; they just know what the media has been pushing and what a top police agency tells them.