Thursday, May 29, 2014

Why is Scotland Yard Digging There?

I just don't get it. Really, I don't. I could pick a number of places in and around Praia da Luz for Scotland Yard to dig for Maddie's body or any remaining items that sniffer dogs might hit on, but that piece of wasteland is the one place I wouldn't waste my time with (no pun intended).

I could see the searching on the Rocha Negra, the large rock that soars above Pria da Luz and which is accessible from the beach. Kate said she had a dream that the abductor had put Maddie's little body up on this rock. It is also the location I believe Gerry may first have hidden Maddie on the night of May 3, in the sandy crevices between the rocks.

I could see Scotland Yard searching beach areas where on the night of May 3 there were overturned boats to temporarily hid a body under and a number of abandoned buildings and weedy areas one could hide a body for a time. All of these areas would be past the point where the Smiths saw a man carrying a child toward the beach.

But where Scotland Yard is looking is back toward the vacation apartment of the McCanns. This would mean the man the Smiths saw would have at some point, if he were indeed the "abductor" or Gerry himself, turn around and go back with the body of the child. Go back somewhere as in his own home or vacation flat because the man carrying the child wasn't also carrying a shovel.

(Update: I wrote this post prior to today's new. The search site is now  be at a location at the left bottom of the map of Abril 25), a location where Smithman would pass the Smiths. If this is so, still a bad location to try to dig a grave (open to public eye and difficult terrain) but more likely because an abductor could have taken Maddie, passed the Smiths, and gone to his home (there are some homes down that way). Then, later he could have dug a grave and buried her in that wasteland spot nearer to the beach. Still unlikely he would have bothered with a grave at that location rather than just using it as a body dump site, but if he were worried about being connected by DNA, I would think he would have taken the body out of Praia da Luz to some barren area where no one could see him digging the grave). (Also, this invalidates any theory that the sniffer dogs were right about the McCann vehicle because the car would be unnecessary and unwise to use to bring her body to that spot for burial. It could be a temporary hiding place for Maddie and then she would have been moved to someplace like the Rocha Negra and then out of Pria da Luz, but I don't know what the police would find of use there now).

Then, after the police started crawling the area, the man would have had to go back out and start digging a hole in an area completely open to the view of anyone passing! Who in their right mind would choose a spot to spend time burying a body where everyone can see them do it? The standard rule for even body dumps is to go to a place you know you won't be seen. When it comes to burying a body, you really need isolation; either you bury in your own backyard (the Murat theory) or you find a desolate place like Monte do Jose Mestre (my theory of where Gerry may have buried Maddie) but you sure as hell don't pick a place that is open on all four sides to the street where anyone walking by will see you. I have walked by that spot and there is no way I would ever chance burying a body there.

So, unless this is simply a public charade of looking for a body near where some local abductor lives (maybe one of those burglary gang guys), I have no clue what could have led Scotland Yard to the one spot in Praia da Luz no one would even consider as a possible grave site to dispose of a missing child.

Also, for those who think that Scotland Yard is looking at the McCanns, if Scotland Yard were following the sniffer dog evidence (that hit on the McCann's hire car), they would be looking outside of Praia da Luz for a body, not right in it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 29, 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...

Hi Pat,

Big fan of your excellent writings on this case!

Has it the site of the digging been totally confirmed yet?

In the Portuguese newspaper 'Jornal de Notícias' it was written today that:

'Although the British police has already said that it wants to search at several locations in Praia da Luz, Jornal de Notícias knows that diligences have been authorised at just one plot, the only one that was requested by the Metropolitan Police in the last letter rogatory. For searches at other locations, there will have to be another official request, which always depends on being granted by the Public Ministry.'

Has it also been confirmed that the British police would like to search at several locations?

Pat Brown said...

Hi Anonymous 12:18

We are really not sure what the actual truth of where all the searching will take place but there is one thing for certain; Scotland Yard is searching IN Praia da Luz, not outside of it. IF they were following the evidence from the dogs and the McCann statements like "Find the body and prove we killed her," they would be looking outside of Praia da Luz. The only way that Maddie would be buried IN Praia da Luz is on the properly of a child sex predator who owned a house. If it were a predator from an apartment or a visitor, he would just dump her body in the bushes and it would have been found. That it hasn't been found means her body is NOT in PDL. Someone had a vehicle and took her out of there, McCann or predator. So, I have no clue why Scotland Yard would look in PDL except that they have some intelligence that says she is there or they are just putting on a show based on some idiot theory of three burglars/predators, one who looks like Gerry and lives near that waste area.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

I thought the search area was the piece of land at the left bottom corner of your pic. That would tie in with the 25 Abril street mentioned today and it would fit more with the direction Smithman was going.

What do you think?


Pat Brown said...

Liz, Smithman would have passed by all the wasteland site and THEN run into the Smiths. Hence, he would have to then turn around, and go back to that area. Why would he do that?

Robert said...

Didn't a judge refuse them permission to dig in other areas?

Anonymous said...

All a big charade

Johanna said...

You will find that the search area is not the one you indicated but a different wasteland area along rua 25 do Abril.

Clarence denied that they were working on a recent tip-off so I guess that is what they are doing.

They are not yet looking for a body imo. They might be looking for the pyjamas...

Pat Brown said...


If it is in the area near the beach, I find that to be just as open a location and harder to bury a body due to the landscape.

As to the pajamas, if they are looking for those, I can guarantee they are looking for a predator and not at the McCanns. Finding the pajamas anyplace with the McCann DNA on it means absolutely nothing, even if it is on Maddie's body. Finding the pajamas on Maddie's body or elsewhere and containing stranger DNA which matches a suspect, you bet that would be something. So if you think Scotland Yard is looking for pajamas, then then either we are totally wrong about the McCann's guilt or the whitewash is in progress.

Pat Brown said...

Liz, clearly I missed the media report that it was a different location off Abril 25. Then the Smithman could pass the Smiths, turn right and go to that location. It seems her body would have been left in the brush there by an abductor or even by Gerry if he had no shovel with him or Smithman would have had to have a place to keep her body and then dig a grave. This would point to an abductor theory, that some fellow took Maddie and carried her back to HIS place, some location past the Smiths (and then you really do have to turn toward the right and that patch of land), kept her in his place, and then buried her late and night. That area is tough to dig in, though, and still pretty open to the public eye, so I find it a bit strange for a grave; a dump site, yes, a grave, no. And certainly to close to PDL for Gerry to believe she would never be found.

Pat Brown said...

I would wager that Scotland Yard has found a criminal Gerry look-a-like who lives over near the search spot. Even if they come up with nothing, they can build a believable theory.

Tony Bennett said...

Hallo Pat, It's Tony Bennett from England - still have the lovely Washington D.C. mug you gave me, many thanks again.
There's a number of points I'd like to come back to you on, but I am going to confine myself to just one - and that is your references (three or four I think) to 'the man the Smiths saw'.
I wondered whether you had ever considered the posisbility that 'Smithman' was a fabrication?
Operation Grange has suddenly advanced 'Smithman' at the very moment - during the October 2013 CrimeWatch McCann Show - that he triumphantly ('it was a revelation moment') claimed that 'Tannerman' was 'Crecheman'. Why, for example, did the entire Smith family say nothing whatseover about their sighting until THIRTEEN days later (16 May). They did so the day after Martin Smith's friend Robert Murat had been made a suspect. And what was a key feature of Martin Smith's statement? - that although he saw practically nothing of the man, he could be 100% sure that it wasn't Robert Murat. And there are many other queries about the family's sightings.
We have had three lone men carrying a child through Praia da Luz on the evening of 3 May. All with exactly the same description. Is it possible that all three of them are fabricated? Note that the McCanns and DCI Redwood are united in promoting 'Smithman' - Have a nice day, Tony

Anonymous said...

For those of us who have been following for years the mystery of Maddie's death - there I have said it, the lies and now the whitewash- we feel really frustrated and helpless. Yes, there is need for closure but do we really have to swallow SY's script which includes exonerating the parents?
Ho hum what is new in this unfair world.

I agree that the car was needed to transport the body. There was a time May/June when the whole family was in PDL and went in a group to celebrate Gerry's birthday. I believe they went to Sagrera or thereabouts. Apparently they were alll wearing formal clothes that day something that was unusual given the temperatures at that time of year. So perhaps the body was in a fridge/freezer awaiting burial at a more convenient time?? Later on in the evening the couple went to Marocco because of the sightings of a possible Madeleine look alike.
This was done without any publicity or police control and it was not mentioned in Kate Mccann's book. This sort of fits in when it was reported that Gerry after arriving back in PDL on one occasion did not go straight to PDL but drove around the countryside first. That's another area SY could check out. Oops, forgot. They won't bother with that! They 're far too busy stitching together THE STORY or as we all know THE ENDING to that STORY.
Thanks Pat for all your work.

Pat Brown said...

Hulloo Tony!

So nice to hear from you! I have been reading your commentary over at JillHavern and find much in common as I always have we our thoughts. BTW, having English breakfast with you in London is a great memory for me (and the walk on the Thames). Also, don't think I have ever had a better time at Heathrow! What a grand way to get from one terminal to the other via my nice outing with you!

As to you questions here, I believe that Smithman is not a fabrication and Smithman is Gerry. Why? Because the McCanns dissed that sighting for years. Even in her book, Kate says it can only by Smithman if he is also Tannerman. Now, an innocent couple would consider Smithman just as important if he was a possible lead to their child. It is also hard to get nine people to lie about something like that, more so than the Tapas 9.

I think much of the thinking is getting too complicated. In reality, most crimes are simple but the longer they go unsolved the fancier the theorizing becomes and every nuance and possibility becomes possible. I think we have both sides of this case doing this. One side accepts every ridiculous possible scenario to find an abductor and the other side every ridiculous possible scenario to find a way for this to be a clever conspiracy.

I think Maddie died on May 3rd and a confused and panicked Gerry and Kate (and a friend or two) did what they had to that night. Gerry got sighted on the way to put Maddie in the water and so he hid her instead. Then, he panicked again when Kate said too much with that dream about the Rocha Negra and moved her body to a place no one could find it. I think he got lucky in having Murat be a decoy in the beginning and then by having much political support for reasons unknown).

As to Scotland Yard, I think they were given a mission to find an abductor and the McCanns and the Tapas 7 were off limits. I believe that once you say the dogs were misled by the handler and the parents were confused and distraught but not guilty of anything more than foolish parenting, you can look for an abductor and lots of creepy guys fit the bill. I believe Scotland Yard has honed in on a theory based on a Praia da Luz gang of burglars whose phones were busy at the right time. One of them lives near the Smithman sighting. From that point on, all the evidence is lining up to fit the theory (and if it doesn't fit, it is tossed aside). Tannerman was eliminated because he was going the wrong way at thee wrong time. Smithman, who looks like Gerry, is going the right way at the right time and also looks like one of the guys who lives nearby a search site. No evidence is going to be found (if this is all a created theory based on proving the McCanns innocent or just wrapping up the case in a tolerable way) but enough will have been established for the masses to be able to live with the conclusion. They will always believe that Scotland Yard has more evidence (that they can't share with the public because they haven't enough for arrest and prosecution) and this will allow them to fill in the blanks and connect the dots which will help them accept whatever suspect's or suspects' guilt.

Pat Brown said...

Tony cont:

Here is my way of looking at it if I were a person with limited knowledge: Oh, those poor McCanns! Seven years of not knowing but thank God a top police agency has done the work that police agency of Portugal's has failed to do. Scotland Yard figured out through a lot of hard work that the retired detective, that horrible Amaral that the McCanns sued, tried to railroad these poor parents. But, Scotland Yard has figured it all out. No, the friend of the parents, Jane, she was never lying for them; she really saw a guy but the Portuguese police never wanted to prove her story true because they wanted to believe the McCanns set her up to lie for them to give Gerry an alibi. But Scotland Yard found the guy, thank god, and now we know Jane and the McCanns weren't lying. The real abductor was from a group of criminals who lived right in the area and the resort covered up their criminal activities. One of them got into the apartment and took Maddie. He carried her to his home (the Smiths saw him) and then got rid of her later. He looks a lot like Gerry so you can see why the McCanns were freaked about that e-fit, that description by the Smiths, because the guy looks so much like Gerry it is scary. But, happily, we finally have the truth about what happened to Maddie. Scotland Yard says they have other evidence that led them to focus in on this group but they can't release that to the public. But, I trust Scotland Yard. They know what they are doing and I am sure they have the right person who took Maddie. I am sure the parents are devastated Maddie is not alive but at least they can have closure.

Pericles Pinto said...

The idea of the McCanns burying Maddie in a hole on the ground can only be a joke.

The ground over there is so hard; digging a hole would take hours!!!

Can anyone tell me why underwater searches were never made at Barragem da Bravura... only 20 minutes away from Praia da Luz???

Police only searched the dam with divers looking for a resurfacing body but, if the body was rigged with weights, it would have never come up!

Serious search would need to be done near the dam wall, 70 to 80 meters deep. Not a job for the average diver...

Pat Brown said...

Pericles, exactly.

I have wandered all over PDL during the day and the night, without a body in tow. Add that and one's nervousness level increases tenfold. Now, imagine that you are trying to dig a grave and bury your child in a location that anyone can see from the street or while taking a stroll up the beach. Impossible task as we are talking about a LOOOONG time fearing being seen while doing that. It is one thing to dump a body, another to bury it.

I believe Gerry may have temporarily hidden Maddie's body during the late evening of May 3 and the early hours of May 4 because that is what you do when you are just trying to quickly hide a disaster. I feel initially he may have put the body under a boat or in an abandoned building or even in the shrubs and then later moved the body to the Rocha Negra (in the crevices you can quickly put a body and then cover it with all the sand and rocks available right there; I tried it and it was very successful (not with an actual body). There the body could remain hidden for a good long time (depending on weather circumstances) and not be discovered. Or it could have been discovered and thought to be placed there by a predator. I think Kate's dream mucked that up. THEN if the body was discovered on the Rocha Negra, it would link back to her and Gerry; so it was moved, this time to a place where no one was likely to ever find the body, like Monte do Jose Mestre, which is a close by but desolate area you can spend time in and not be discovered digging a grave.

We will have to see what Scotland Yard comes up with at that site by Abril 25, but I think it is going to be zero. I am curious, though, why the Portuguese appear to be very cooperative with them now at that location.

Anonymous said...

What is the chance that the child was burid in the church graveyard? the McCanns had a key to the church and therefore 24/7 access without prying eyes.
There is no way cadaver dogs would not alert in a graveyard and no way anyone would allow bodies to be disinterred.

Johanna said...

Re: the pyjamas.
Why being so rash about everything? Think about the beauty of Pyjamas found with Madeleine's DNA but without an Eeyore on it and with long sleeves as witnessed by Aoife Smith.

A long shot, but evidence can be so many things...

Pat Brown said...

Eh? I am not following you at all, Johana. Her pajamas prove NOTHING without stranger offender DNA, so I don't see what purpose your line of thinking is taking.

As for rash? I hardly think watching Scotland Yard act bizarrely to the tune of millions of pounds for three years is rash.

I know many are super excited with their belief Scotland Yard is going to arrest the McCanns in the coming weeks, but I will ask you as I have asked the others and gotten dead silence:

IF you believe so strongly that everything Scotland Yard has done is a sign of a proper and honest investigation, then will you accept the McCanns are innocent if Scotland Yard ends up being focused on a stranger abduction?

Tony Bennett said...


You wrote: Hulloo Tony!...BTW, having English breakfast with you in London is a great memory for me (and the walk on the Thames). Also, don't think I have ever had a better time at Heathrow! What a grand way to get from one terminal to the other via my nice outing with you!

REPLY: You were for a few hours a guest in my country (though not an entire stranger to it)) and I was happy to make those few hours as pleasant as possible for you. After all, you were taking the time and trouble to try to find out what had happened to one of our young infants, a 3-year-old missing in the most strange and as-yet-unexplained circumstances. We are all grateful for your interest. There are a few important points of difference I have with you - but no more on here about that, maybe when (if ever) you take a breather, we can e-mail each other privately about those - Tony

guerra said...

I think what Johanna is referring to is Mrs McCann's statement to the Portuguese police in which she described that her daughter was wearing short sleeve pyjamas with an image of a donkey bearing the inscription Eeyore. As opposed to the statement by Aoife the daughter of Martin Smith who said that the child she saw was wearing long sleeves and she didn't see any image or patterns.

What I believe Johanna is arguing is that if the child is actually found with long sleeve pyjamas without the image of the Winnie the Pooh donkey that this would be more evidence against the McCanns, as if there aren't enough contradictions already.

Johanna has put so much work into this case, more than any of us; she wants so bad for this case to go to trial, that she refuses to accept that Scotland Yard is doing nothing more than creating a story for public consumption, a story that will fit some of the evidence gathered by the original investigators but that will be in disagreement with their conclusions.

Pat Brown said...

I see, Guerra. Sadly, though, eliminating Smithman as well as Tannerman does little to prove another person couldn't have done it.

In fact, eliminating Smithman eliminates Gerry for the most part since it is mostly Smithman that points the finger at him disposing of Maddie.

I know it will be argued that this can mean Gerry could have taken away Maddie at some other time, perhaps before May 3, but there is nothing to prove this at all.

Eliminating Smithman could be seen as another positive step to protecting the McCanns - why not create a fake Smithman a la Tannerman? That would be proof the McCanns were being protected; but since this was not done and only Tannerman eliminated, then Scotland Yard must be focusing in on Smithman and Gerry. Now, why would we want pajamas to eliminate him? Ah, a tangled web.

I certainly understand, Guerra, why Joana and many others want Scotland Yard to be finally ending this nightmare. As I have said before, I hope I am really wrong about them.

So, why do I ask the question about will they then accept the McCanns as innocent if Scotland Yard turns out to be looking for an abductor after all?

I do not ask this to be mean (because I really like Joana and many others who are not in the whitewash camp). I ask this so that folks will look closely at the issue. Those who are pro-McCann right now are believing that Scotland Yard is going to identify an abductor as Smithman. IF Scotland Yard then closes in on the McCanns, they will claim that Scotland Yard is railroading them. For those who believe the McCanns are guilty, I think they will claim that Scotland Yard indeed has whitewashed the case if they DON'T go after the McCanns. But I am not looking at the results: I am looking at the evidence they have provided thus far without harboring any wishful belief in this police agency as being totally ethical nor any animosity toward them and assuming the worst. I just have never seen anything like what is happening in this case ever happening before and each step of the way seems to indicate a whitewash rather than a real investigation. Let me explain (in following comment)

Pat Brown said...

Guerra (part 2)

In the beginning, I actually wondered that the McCanns might not be innocent after all because they asked for the review and, if it were a reasonably priced review, well, I could see it sort of being a happy excursion into trying to help a suffering family that has been missing their little girl.

Then, right out of the gate, Redwood said that none of the Tapas 9 were suspects, that they were not going to be bothered. Some think this is a ruse; I do not. IF they were really going to be considered, the proper public statement is this: We are going to go back to the beginning and review this case properly. While no one is a suspect at this point, no one can be properly eliminated until we review the evidence. The McCanns understand this and support a thorough reinvestigation of the case."

Next, we have a phony reenactment which keeps the Tapas timeline without question and exonerates Jane Tanner and the McCanns as co-conspirators. Yes, now the focus is put on Smithman, but so what? Scotland Yard does not need to do an preparation to the world that they are looking at Gerry; they only need to prepare them for a good scenario that will eventually end with an abductor.

Next, we have Redwood himself talking about looking for an assaulter of little girls in the Algarve. He is not eliminating other possibilities (as this is completely impossible); he is setting up the public to accept that sex predators do indeed exist in the area and, therefore, Smithman could be one of them.

Now, we have some supposed reason for zeroing in on Praia da Luz, looking for a body (and they are only rationally looking for a body with radar and such; it has been seven year and nothing else found will be worth anything). Looking IN PDL for a body eliminates the sniffer dog evidence as the dogs pointed to Gerry's hire car as transport. What Scotland Yard is telling us is that someone did something bad to Maddie IN PDL and, no, the McCanns did not take her away.

Now, even if they can't find her body, the world knows they were looking there and not in, say, Monte do Jose Mestre where Gerry's car pinged (if they did that I would absolutely think they were looking at the McCanns) or some other place the McCanns have thought to have taken Maddie's body. But, I am sure, whereever they are looking, we will find a Gerry-look-alike living or working nearby.

So, I am not for or against Scotland Yard. I just see behavioral evidence of Redwood and Company as being indicative of a whitewash. I will be happy to be wrong.

But, my question still remains to those who have so much faith in Scotland Yard; if you believe their behaviors show them to be working toward proving the McCanns guilty, will you accept that they were honorably actually working toward catching an abductor?

In the end, I hope that all of us, will want one major thing - whether we believe the McCanns are innocent or guilty; evidence. I have said all along that there is not enough evidence as of yet to convict the McCanns in a court of law of doing something to their child. I believe if the investigation would have allowed to continue, maybe this evidence would have been found. Maybe, if the others are right, Scotland Yard will find such evidence but finding it seven years later and having it be good enough for a prosecution is not very likely (another reason I find it hard to understand why Scotland Yard is working so hard and spending so much money on a case with no body .... unless they can find one!). Evidence...this is what we should demand, one way or the other. True evidence that convicts someone or eliminates them. Until now, all we have is evidence pointing toward the McCanns, not enough to convict but enough to suspect. Let's see what next week brings to light.

Anonymous said...

OMG Pat, I hope you are wrong about this being a whitewash. I really do.

guerra said...

What Joanna is saying is if by some miracle the body of the child was found wearing pyjamas similar to the description given by Martin Smith's daughter and unlike the description given by Mrs. McCann, that that would validate Mr. Smith's sighting and would bring in to question Mrs McCann's honesty.

You know where I stand on this Pat. Like yourself I would be pleasantly surprised to wake up some day and find that Scotland Yard had charged those actually responsible for the death of the child, however, like yourself, I find the unprecedented manner in which this review / investigation was started, the bizarre behaviour of Mr. Redwood and the ratcheting up of activity as the end of the libel trial approaches indicative of a police force engaged not in an investigation but a project.

We were told "creche dad" turned himself in and despite Mr. Redwood's attempts I doubt very much that he exists. And if that is indeed the case, what good is a person that doesn't exist to a prosecutor. Of course literature is filled with characters that never existed but are needed to hold a story together. Who knows we could be told soon that Madeleine McCann's short sleeved pyjamas with the donkey were found, and you know what that means; it means the Smiths saw some other person carrying a child. Scotland Yard hold all the cards they don't have to prove anything. Maybe this time they will put more of an effort into their presentation by displaying the stained pyjamas.

Anonymous said...

For Guerra...

Scotland Yard's "review imo is part of a wider, ideological-based drive to protect the McCanns... ideology hangs in the ether (Collective Unconscious) like an episteme! (Foucault).

I learned that as a Portuguese living and studying in the UKGB in the 1990's. There I had my bike stolen by a bunch of English tramps.

I located the tramps and the bike and called the Police in order to get my property back.

I then realized the Police was not going to do anything about the bike...

They were more interested in protecting their "fellow countrymen"...

That was the moment I realized that as a foreigner university student (Kent/Canterbury) I was less than a tramp in the UKGB.

Same thing is happening here - just an hunch...

Just imagine what a pathetic-looking cop like You-know-who thinks of Dr. Gonçalo Amaral and his Portuguese counterparts...

This is what this "review" is all about. I could not agree more with Pat and, of course, with you.


Anonymous said...

But, my question still remains to those who have so much faith in Scotland Yard;

Most don't really have it, Pat, it's just fingers-crossed hope.

guerra said...

Mario, When I first went online to discuss this case, way back in 2007, it dawned on me that the tactics that the McCanns were employing were very similar to those used by people running a political campaign. They were striving for the public's approval. They portrayed themselves as saints and the person who was investigating the case, their rival Mr. Amaral, as an incompetent, unethical, cruel person. The individual running this campaign, Mr. Clarence Mitchell, understood the prejudices of British society and he used them to the McCann's advantage. He appealed to the British society's sense of superiority, some of the articles that were written were shameful.

So, I agree that that aspect of British society exists, but I cannot bring myself to believe that the bare bones reason this review / investigation was launched was because England simply wanted to protect some of their own. Were the McCanns in danger? Was it necessary for SY to intervene with this scheme of theirs? In my opinion the McCanns could have walked away from the limelight when the case was archived knowing that they will never be tried.

As I've said before this review was launched to discredit the work done by the original Portuguese investigators, the heightened activity was planned to coincide with the libel trial. I can only speculate as to why; I suspect that a few people are being blackmailed.

One poster said recently that Mr. Amaral will likely win the libel trial in Portugal but that the McCanns will take it to the European courts, where their backers have influence. I'm not so sure that Mr. Amaral will win in Portugal; he's in a lot of trouble.

Pat Brown said...


You and I are in exactly the same state of mind. I have a bad feeling for Goncalo; the whole timing of everything seems rather coincidental.

Sadly, collateral damage is often not a big concern of politicians. Damage done to certain people is just a byproduct of the needed results. I have been a victim of this, so I know it happens and happens more often than people realize. And it is surprising how quickly the whole thing can suddenly come to a conclusion, ends wrapped up, and then dropped into the dark waters of the past (barring some folks who keep things going out on the Internet, but those will be specialized groups who the major media ignore).

Sometimes good people end up getting crushed. I hope this isn't going to happen to Goncalo, but if it does, I hope he can take some consolation in knowing he did everything he possibly could and that stands for a whole lot in this world.

Pat Brown said...

Tony, I would love to catch up by email. I don't know yours at the moment (it is on my old dead computer). Email me at

Anonymous said...

Broadly speaking I am in agreement with Pat and Guerra here.

I have respect for those who take a different view of the SY investigation and I can understand their point of view. The scrutiny that has been given to timelines, alibis etc is interesting, but always begs the question of why SY would release such information given that it might ultimately compromise a prosecution. I've said it many times before: "save it for the court room or the interview suite (under caution)". Legal reality...not Crimewatch.

It also needs to be said that for the overwhelming mass of people these details will remain forever obscure. We are not the target audience. We are the Internet 'nutters'.

At some stage I think that this has moved away from the crux. Scepticism (well informed or not) can have no bearing upon police outcomes. It can, however, puncture the fervent 'beliefs' and *wishes* of people who have invested so much emotion in this. Hence the heat.

Even if we assume for a moment that Redwood is playing fair then all this talk that has circulated about the McCanns being 'toast'/'finished' etc is ridiculously premature. People's hopes have been manipulated into a false expectation (well meaning perhaps, or malicious...I don't know). If Redwood is excavating for genuine facts then it is because he himself knows that as yet he doesn't have enough. One thing is for sure, *he* would not be imagining the game is over until the very moment someone is convicted.

It also needs to be remembered that should he fail to build a case then, like it or not, he will have to put someone kind of ill fitting wrapper around 3+ years of work.

(Assuming he is trying to build a case)

MRSFeeX said...

Well I think this 'digging story' will die in the Media soon.
Next year in May we will get a another Mccann 'insight'
I am sure..

(Mabye the 'Mccann conman on tv' will raise some questions??
Like.. how can it be possible one guy fooled everyone..,all such educated and smart people..
Are they stupid over there?)
No checking??
Oh, yeah, the 'checkstory' was always wierd.

And people search on the net. for answers..
I did..
Awareness is a great thing..

Redwood did say The Mccann were no persons of interest.
And there is no murder, or abduction proven.
Only a missing person.
So.. Why does SY get involve and even do to 'Europe' to tell the Mcann are no persons of interest.
It is a cold case of a missing person..
Not a crime, or any harm proven
( to use Gerry his words)

It make no sence at all.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pat,
I've been "on the fence" re whitewash or not BUT as time goes by, I tend to follow your line. Your question to the people who believe in SY bringing justice for Madeleine in the end, whether they'll accept SY:s conclusion as a result of a sincere investigation.....No, they will most certainly say that you and Tony Bennett (and surely many more) were right from the beginning. Unfortunately. Bur we're not there yet, are we?
I haven't read your book about this case yet., but I understand you truly believe Madeleine's death was accidental.....? IMO so many signs that it was far from accidental,

Anonymous said...

@PAT, agreed on the very point, this is to hang blame on a detective who found errors in their statements?
Amaral wasnt the prime instigator, those who dont read the files, will miss the point about being objective towards bigger contradictions, and who has mishandled information, if the maccanns knew smithman didnt exist, like many other red herrings, this would change the time line gerry was at the bar, and the direction of a unexplained e fit?
Unless this took place on a diferent night where gerry has no alibi prior to checks?
There is no confirmation exactly when madeleine went missing, the reason i think this, is based on very little evidence where madeleine was on previous occasions, and that madeleine was left alone without a witness baby sitter to confirm madeleine was in that apartment?
Its kind of odd to have a child crying the one night, and nothing the next?
Personaly i would be looking at them times in a link to phone calls being deleted by the maccanns, we have no evidence madeleine said anything that morning, thats if she was ever there, some clues suggest this wasnt the night she went missing, and there is odd evidence to point to this, the bed wasnt slept in that night, you then have to look at the way the alleged abduction story was created to fit a very limited time on this night in question?
Not possible, and that is not a assumption, the cover story is odd also, i have brought up the question how kate knew so much about any foul play before that apartment was forensicaly examined?
There is no source how kate got this information so quickly?
Given there is no evidence of any intruder ever being in that apartment, no independent witness to support that claim during any checks, and none saying there was anyone hiding apart from the maccanns?
How then did their freinds not question this claim?
Why would anyone fail to suspect such a claim, and especialy where kate didnt ask anyone who had previously checked if they had noticed anything, before leaping into a odd abduction story?
Anyone would of asked, how did she know this for sure, without question towards the group?
It shows inconsistent problems in such claims, very irrational behavior, and very deceptive to conclude how kate manipulated this story, and also was desperatly cunning to stop people asking questions they dont directly answer?
Any child that states what kate alleged, can only prove how much the maccanns have distanced themselves over what realy happend?
They left her alone again, does anyone buy that crap?
Look at this another way, there wasnt a baby sitter during all that time madeleine was missing, and they think that isnt suspect to what amaral thought?
I would think that was a huge giveaway from the start, not so dificult to think out side the box why they avoided a court trial, and having their freinds questioned over odd claims, they didnt question?
Dont worrie im just another nut thinking out loud about so called ignorance!

AnneGuedes said...

There was a vehicule, yes, capable to take the body out of PDL, without nobody noticing, not even the guys who drove it.
That vehicule was neither the predator's nor to GMC's, but belonged to the camara municipal de Lagos.

Eddie who barked, after some difficulty to find the base of the scent cone, at the Scenic's door alerted only to porous likely contaminated key.

Pat Brown said...

To the last two Anons about the death not being accidental and not occurring on May 3:

I have explained this many times but I will explain again once more here:

The death did not occur before May 3rd. Why?

1) That night was too much of a mess to have been planned. The two simpler methods of Maddie going missing are: open the window, "go to bed," "wake up," find Maddie missing. Same story but you don't set yourself up as lousy, neglectful parents that might then cause the police to suspect something else happened. You don't have to involve friends, fake an entire evening of cheery dining, and you don't have to be seen by the Smiths because you need to rush the body off (unless, of course, Smithman is not Gerry or not real)..

2). Kate can take the kids on an outing and turn her back and Maddie can come up missing. Again, simple, the kind of thing that can happen that any parent can relate to, and no need again to involve friends and fake an evening out.

Everything that occurred that evening was chaotic; the stories were confused, there were lies told that sent up red flags (timing of checks, door locked, door not locked), bedroom door moved, moved back - all of this shows a mad attempt to concoct a story in a short time, not some brilliant premeditated plan.

As time goes on and a case remains unsolved, it is common for people to start overthinking every statement and suspect every possibility. Personally, I don't buy the Gaspar statement as valid and I don't take Gerry's negative comment in that video at the beginning of the trip as some super sinister comment. I don't think any pics of Maddie show her to be super sexual or the last photo to be doctored. I don't think every photo of the couple smiling proves they didn't care one hoot about Maddie (still photos are never accurate evidence of anything because we don't know the exact circumstances of the moment they were taken or what happened the second before).

It is important to stick with evidence and not go to far afield with wild speculation; I am not saying that everyone is wrong and I am right (all has to be proven more solidly at some point) but I am analyzing evidence through years of experience with cases and nothing in this case shows (to me) anything other than an accidental death that occurred on May 3 and a couple of panicked parents who tried to cover it up. That thy are both massively narcissistic (Gerry leaning toward psychopathic) and that they have some connection to someone in power who has ended up protecting them has caused the aftermath of May 3 to be the most unusual thing I have ever seen.

Anonymous said...

But it would not be easy for Kate to come up with an explanation good enough not to arise suspicions, as in your second option. Complications leading to further complications when getiting rid of the body etc. The neglect scenario is necessary to enable the abduction. Yes, many people did and do think they are lousy parents because of the neglect, but compared to what really happened (IMO) it' s NOTHING. And I've read several opinions in different fores where quite a few parents don't think it's such a big thing, really. "Leaving the kids while checking regularly is not that unusual- but the McCanns had extremely bad luck" or similar words....Wasn't Paolo Rebelo doubting the neglect?? Psychologically, if a person strongly empasizes something (which they did) it is to distract. As for the chaos on the 3d, no matter how thourough
something is planned ,- with that number of people a little chaos is expected. Even more if not everyone of the tapas7 are aware of the whole truth. Dr Martin Roberts mccannfiles has lifted the time issue several times. I think one of his posts is about the Monday that very same week, makes sense. I mean,, there ARE a lot of strange coincidences in this case, identifying them is not the same as 'overreading' and adding ones own theories to it.

Pat Brown said...

Well, Anon 11:48, opinions differ. I gave my professional opinion but I do not expect that everyone has to agree with it.

AnneGuedes said...

I can't figure out that these people covered up an accidental death (a banality). They had not even to tell the truth to their friends and family.
Madeleine died before they left (if you trust Martin Grime), hence she didn't die because of neglect.

Anonymous said...

@PAT, There is nothing wrong with your opinion, and i respect your experience, i was simply looking at oppurtunity in a real abduction, and they dont usualy happen around checks because of being identified by a neighbour ect?
I picked up on your point about a body being buried, and how very dificult this would be, without being seen?
I do agree a abductor would just leave the body in a bush or left unattended because of a quick getaway in the time frame alleged?
They wouldnt of had time, and made mistakes like you have pointed out.
It was only a thought that only a real abduction could only happen on a night without checks, thats all i could think of if you can understand what is possible and what isnt, the other thing about this case is the change of stories, this is something i have found odd pat about that night?
Kate didnt ask mrs fenn to watch her twins in the beleif some one had taken her daughter!
You dont have to agree, but normaly one would ask the nearest person to any alleged abduction if they had seen anything during the time this child went missing?
One dosent have to get on with a neighbour to ask for vital information, before jumping into chaos, this wasnt a time to be selfish and ignorant, way too much drama, but not enough thought to any safety before leaving that apartment with a alleged intruder about?
I dont buy their story of that night, thats alot of incompetence in one night, kate was allegedly angry with her freinds walking all over the crime scene?
Their still freinds, after they blew the chances of finding any evidence to nail a abductor, yet were comfortable to blame robert murat knowing the scene was comtaminated?
Very strange contradictions from them doing the accusing.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 9:33

It is the totality of the evidence that drives my final analysis. Pointing out one issue in isolation of all the others is what a defense lawyer does to confuse the jury (hence, why I am opposed to the nonprofessional jury who often cannot understand the concept of totality of evidence). I explain all this in my books and blogs and cannot address each issue brought up separately here because that is not how an analysis can be developed nor understood. The physical and behavioral evidence together and in totality leads me to conclude that the most likely scenario of what occured is an accident in the flat during which Maddie died on May 3 and her body was removed and hidden that night in Praia da Luz (possibly moved twice; from the flat to the beach area and then to a crevice in the Rocha Negra) and then moved once move in the hire car to an isolated location like Monte do Jose Mestre, the area west of Praia da Luz where Gerry's phone pinged.

Others may present alternative theories and they should do so by fully explaining all the physical and behavioral evidence that supports their conclusions. Then, detectives or whomever is doing more work in th case, can review the evidence and the theories, weigh where most validity lies, and then proceed with their investigation to gather more evidence for prosecution. Goncalo Amarall was on the way to doing that when the McCanns fled the country and he was removed from the case and the case was shelved.

Anonymous said...

I feel it's strange that the McCanns are saying they will not go back to Portugal now. Kate McCann has told how she goes back twice a year but now she won't go back? Why not? Are they worried that they might give something away?

Pat Brown said...

Anon 4:34

I wouldn't make too much of the McCanns not going to Portugal. They probably know nothing will be found and, even if they have no clue what could be found (guilty or not), they don't know how long they would have to wait around to hear anything. There is no absolute reason why they are looking any place that they have disclosed, so, if I were them, I wouldn't jump (even if innocent). Like they said, if something is discovered, they can fly in.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

Thank you for all your interesting work which makes us all think.

There has been some news management going on but this time I do not see the hand of Clarence. I agree the central Luz dig site is a strange choice but is this a magician's slight of hand? While all the press are in central Luz (handy for bars, restaurants, etc) and looking the other way, will there be other digs? Indeed, Mrs Murat is now becoming vocal and offering the garden of Casa Liliana for a dig. It will be interesting to see if Stephen Birch arrives with a shovel.

I tend to agree with you that poor little Madeleine's body was moved around from pillar to post before finding a final resting place. So would the Casa Liliana garden have been one of the staging posts? With the proximity to apartment 5A, it fits in with the panic removal as you describe prior to the more considered hiding (such as Rocha Negra) before permanent disposal.

Anyway, good news about the Amaral libel trial as closing arguments may be a chance for more information to come out. In the meantime, we leave DCI AR and his boys digging away and wait for the McCanns to produce a British High Court authorisation from 2009 to sue him.

Thanks for your research and writing,

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the torture of the English grammatical rules in the last paragraph. I mean we leave DCI AR digging and the Mc's to produce the authorisation to sue Amaral!

Joke stolen from Blacksmith Bureau: The McCanns will not be in Portugal for the dig. However, they or their friends will check in every half an hour...


Anonymous said...

Maybe not all people are what they appear - let me explain - We all tend to profile people subconsciously - judge the book by its cover you could say..... we pigeon hole people into groups.

Nowadays its done more than ever, successes are judged by the size of the wallet.. classed as "smart" people even though no moral compass in their business dealings in many cases....its business though eh and good guys come last... blah blah.

The way people dress/wear their hair etc .. can all influence a pre judgement on a person rightly or wrongly and thus an initial profile is forming of that person....its called first impressions.

In the tradition of the UK, Doctors have always been regarded as pillars of society and generally most people are bought up to think they can do no wrong. Cultures change though and sometimes the "joe" public don't keep up and resume to believe in how traditionally things were...even though the Doctors of today are not the same as in bygone years and just the numbers alone nowadays mean more bad apples will slip the net.

The facts are some of the most irresponsible people are highly educated with great careers but have become above the law, whilst high on life with status...the banking sector is a pertinent example.
When such people live these lives its classed as high spirits, eccentric, bohemian ...when the low classes live similarly ..scumbags lowlifes and off to prison.

Justice don't make me laugh...laws have NEVER been applied fairly see more injustice today because the extended families of these connected status people in society ...are growing and the tentacles are seen where they weren't before.

What this case is to my mind are huge lies within lies ...not all players in the cover up are aware of the truth ? some folks refuse to believe it of Doctors from successful background's and family's goers to boot...many helpers were roped into help initially on that ideology I have no doubt.

It does not excuse the proceeding behaviours but does at least explain the initial responses - and without been cynical I believe some folks see it has ways to raise their own profiles for future endeavours .....the worlds full of fickle people professing to be good, but really self centred egotistical plonkers.

Some words that have been swirling in my head lately that were said to Susan Healy (kates Mother) by Gerry McCann ....ITS A DISASATER ...ITS A DISASTER.

one could say that those words align to a pre arranged plan going wrong.


Trish Harrison said...

Does anyone know what Kate McCann was wearing the night Madeleine disappeared? I was curious as to whether or not she was seen that evening dressed in the outfit to which the dogs alerted.

Anonymous said...

I am confused as to why the area of scrubland would need to be checked when it was allegedly searched after Madeleine disappeared.

Pat Brown said...


I believe the search area is going to be tied to an interview with a sex predator (possibly Antony Woodhouse is now jailed in England for rape and owned a business in PDL at the time) or to the locations of one of the three burglars. If I am correct this is a cover-up, in the end you only have to create a good scenario and a fine effort to locate Maddie and/or her body. It is then possible to say, "We have good information that so-and-so was involved in the crime and we had hoped he would have disposed of the body on land so we could locate it and return Maddie to her parents for proper burial. Unfortunately, since we have searched the land she would most likely have been buried on by our suspect, we now believe she was disposed of in the ocean. We are sorry we cannot bring her home to the McCanns but we hope we have provided closure for them."

Anonymous said...

@ Pat

the cover up as always been the agenda.
I find it amazing how powerless we all are ....I mean this is so in your face corruption it beggars belief...and carried out by both governments and law enforcements ..the only few shining lights in this sorry despicable case, such as Goncalo Amaral and team.....will be made to look like incompetent liars by the rich connected "smart" people of the world, business is at all cost ...don't let truth, honesty and decency lead the way its not lose money....drools.

stop putting the world to right, its not a fair world... shit happens ! many will say.

NOT ME...yes shit happens and it stinks.. it is not good enough that we the public are letting the real criminals in this case escape.
Its not politics ...its serious criminality.... period!

Please people that read here ..fight don't give in...power changes hands and it will.

The happy ever after does not belong to the criminal mob but the defenders of Truth and Justice.
If that's not achieved ...its all failure, peoples lives destroyed and for ZILCHO, NOTHING just a...pat on the back and a "never mind, you did the right thing"

the crooks in this case were the governments and they kill for all sorts of lies as we know.

I am convinced we the people have become muppets ...I really mean that.

what a world.


Anonymous said...

Hi Pat
Like many other people, I have found this case fascinating. However, in terms of the McCanns involvement, I am a fence sitter. One part of me believes in their complete innocence (while not agreeing with their childcare arrangements), and at other times, I am not so sure. However, regarding Smithman, I do wonder how he could possibly have been Gerry McCann when so many independent witnesses saw Gerry at the Ocean Club at the same time Smithman was sighted? Can you please explain your theory regarding this? It seems that Gerry was very involved with all the action going on at The Ocean Club when Kate first called out that Madeleine was missing. There were nannies, waiters, Ocean Club general staff and managers, other guests etc... that saw Gerry at the Ocean Club between 9.30pm and for the rest of the evening. They would not have any reason to lie on his behalf. What are your thoughts on this? thanks