In the Court of Law and the Court of Life

One of the most important traits of a proper criminal profiler is objectivity; to view the evidence without subjectivity or without allowing emotions or personal gain to cloud one's determinations. These are also the most important traits of a detective, a judge and a jury, the media and for anyone analyzing any issue. In reality, often these traits are limited or missing, both in professionals and layperson. And, because this is true, things don't always work out in life in a just and honorable manner. Let's see how this plays out in the McCann case.

Let's start with citizens, those people who make up a town or a state or a country. The first problem with citizens addressing any issue is ignorance. If you asked a good portion of people about the McCann case, they either wouldn't know a thing about it or they would say something like, "Isn't that the little girl Scotland Yard is looking for?" or maybe, "Isn't that the little girl that got kidnapped because the parents were out drinking?" Most people don't even pay much attention to the news and those that do, go with what the media is telling them and no further. They aren't spending hours delving into the matter via Facebook and Twitter and blogs.

The second issue is apathy. If the citizen deems the issue to be of little importance to his life, he may simply ignore it. I can guarantee you that the majority of citizens in the US, the UK, and even Portugal really could give a damn about the McCann case. Likely, the strongest interest lies with the citizens of Praia da Luz who just don't like the bad name town got concerning crime because that affects their business. I am sure some citizens of the UK are pissed that taxpayer money is being spent on what seems a fruitless endeavor by Scotland Yard, but I wouldn't be surprised that quite a few will simply say that the money is well spent if they can find Maddie and bring closure to those poor  suffering parents. It is probably a small portion of citizens who find the matter important enough to get bent out of shape about.

The media has about zero objectivity any more because if "it bleeds, it leads." It's about the money, as  much as can be gotten through ratings and readership. There are exceptions to this rule, but then we see agendas, on the left and on the right, and for special interest groups. Sometimes the truth comes out, especially in smaller media outlets, but these have difficulty fighting for visibility against the big guys. Sometimes when a questionable story comes out, I have to google to the 20th or 30th page to hit upon true facts about the matter and how many people do you think google that far down? Hence, the importance of getting high on the search engines and that costs money. Right now the media, for either reasons of money or politics, is squarely in the McCann camp.

Citizens can make a difference, I am not saying that they can't. I am just saying that it takes one hell of an issue to cause such an uprising that it gets traction and the protest has to gain incredible legs to threaten the people that wield tremendous power and control. And, sometimes, even then, what is perceived to be a victory is really one power faction getting behind a particular group to take down the other power faction. Sometimes even bad people do good things for society when it benefits them to do so. I was hoping maybe this was the case when Scotland Yard first got hold of this case, that maybe the political winds had changed and now the McCanns would be useful pawns for some new political power holders. Sadly, I do not see any evidence of this. But, still, we never know when one of us or a group of us influences someone out there who just might be the key to turning things around. I think that is why we still bother to try because we just never know. Besides, it is still the right thing to do and that alone is a good enough reason.

Detectives are people, too. Most of them really want to catch the bad guys and bring justice to victims and their families. Sometimes they do a fabulous job; sometimes they don't. When they don't, it isn't always because they don't care. They simply may be overworked or poorly trained or their department doesn't support them doing the right (and politically detrimental thing). Sometimes their subjectivity gets in the way or their ego or they get bamboozled by wealthy or well-heeled people who they don't recognize as possibly being criminals. Sometimes, a detective is just not that bright. Sometimes the detectives and the department do everything right, but get screwed by the prosecutor. So, while we want to believe all detectives and police agencies will do a stellar job all of the time, this is simply not reality.

Now, to the courts. Do you know why we have a jury system here in the US? Because we don't trust judges. We realize that they can be bribed, they can be swayed by personal issues, they can allow their egos or emotions get the better of them when they make decisions. There is a reason we have appeal courts and that is to fix the "mistakes" of lower judges (we do this for juries too). Of course, who is to say the lower court judge isn't right and the higher court wrong? Why do you think even the Supreme Court judges can overturn laws made by previous Supreme Court judges? Because all law is just a matter of opinion made by certain judges during certain periods of time. Once it was okay to have slaves and who do you think made those laws? Oh, yeah, infallible judges. All law is a matter of opinion and interpretation. The earlier decision of a lower court judge in the Amaral case had his book taken off the market. Now, some claim he was "inexperienced." No, he just made a determination based on his interpretation of the law (or his biases or his self-interests) and then a higher court judge overturned it based on his interpretation of the law (or his biases or his self-interests).

Monday, the McCanns will show up in court to testify. The present judge will hear their arguments and then, at some point in the probably ridiculous distant future, we will get a judgment. It will not be the judgment of a jury of untrained citizens who have hardly been screened to sit in court and try to understand complicated matters that are completely beyond a good number of them (who each individually might have emotional or other subjective responses to the matter and come to a conclusion that is far from objective). No, it will be the judgment of one person - one - one person who may have been bribed, who may have been swayed by politics, who may have been swayed by the fact one of the best law enforcement agencies in the world, Scotland Yard, appears to be in complete opposition to Gonçalo Amaral - just a lone policeman who went on a tear against a couple of parents of a missing child - a judge who might be swayed by like or dislike for one of the parties, who might simply interpret the law in such a way that people will then say the judge has been bought (by one side or the other). The judge may be perfectly professional and honorable or quite the opposite.

There is simply no way to predict the outcome in Portugal of the civil case of the McCanns and Amaral. I have seen far too many civil cases come to ridiculous conclusions and horrible wrongs perpetuated against individuals who came into court believing that the facts alone would determine the outcome.

In reality, the only ones who usually win hands down in a civil court are the attorneys (of which the judge is one). The two or more attorneys make a hell of a lot of money (and the judge a fine living) and no matter how it all turns out, they may just get together the following weekend on the golf course and have a few rounds of beer afterwards; after all, it is just another workday for them and a well-paid one at that.

In the court of law and the court of life, we can only do what we can in our respective positions as citizens or police detectives or profilers. If we do what is right, regardless of the outcome, we have added some good to the world and, maybe, just maybe, this is what is needed to give the human race the wherewithal to keep on going.

God bless, Gonçalo Amaral, and all of you who have stood for truth. Regardless of the outcome of both the criminal case and the civil case, the simple fact that some human beings will stand up for justice warms the heart and reminds us that there is still good in the world, even though sometimes it doesn't always triumph in the courts.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 15, 2014

  
Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.

What Some People are Misunderstanding about my Blog Posts

I have seen a bit of anger from those hoping to see the McCanns brought to justice over my recent blog posts. These are the same people who seemed to like me a lot when I was posting how the evidence, physical and behavioral, points to the McCanns. Now they don't like me so much, pissed off enough to now start insulting me and questioning my competency in profiling. Why is my willingness to speak openly and truthfully now a problem when before doing so made me one they cheered on as one of the few people willing to stand up to the McCanns and put their reputation and career on the line?

I believe two things are the culprits here: wishful thinking and an odd belief that bloggers, Facebookers, Tweeters, and even professionals have any impact here on what is presently going on.

Let me address wishful thinking first. Many want to believe Scotland Yard is planning so really awesome capture of the McCanns, spending three years cleverly working behind the scenes to bring them down, crafting television shows to manipulate them and the public. I see not a shred of evidence that this is happening. All I see is a police department with a mandate to review and investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as a stranger abduction. Everything from Day One points to this purpose and nothing since then has proved the opposite to me. The recent search more than validates to me that Scotland Yard is focused on a bunch of suspects that have nothing to do with the Tapas Nine.

Sorry, but there is no big surprise coming down the pike. Those who are angry that I question a top police agency like Scotland Yard don't want to acknowledge what I say may be true, because if it is, they know the McCanns are never going to be brought to justice unless the Portuguese do it, and the chances that Portugal will take the McCanns down without the cooperation of the UK at this point is astronomically low.

The second issue is that any of us has any power to affect what is going on in this case. Gonçalo couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, Bennett couldn't do it, and we have had the largest platforms on this case above anyone else. Maybe early on if such a strong, unknown support of the McCanns hadn't taken root, we all could have had more influence. But, once the powers that be took over, the powers are far too big for us to compete with. When I wrote my last post about Scotland Yard conveniently adding credibility to the McCann's case against Amaral, folks actually told me I shouldn't have written this post because it could be detrimental to Gonçalo. I almost laughed out loud, though sadly and with understanding. If I, myself, thought my blogging was going to change the outcome of Gonçalo's case, I would be afflicted with a serious narcissistic personality disorder.

So, then, you ask, why do I blog this pessimistic stuff about Scotland Yard and the libel case against Amaral? Because people DO need to realize what is happening, the truth should be kept out there, if not for its influence on this present case, but for historical purposes and its affect on future missing persons' cases.  Also, what kind of person would I be if I explained the evidence against the McCanns but  kept my mouth shut about the evidence of police malfeasance and political interference with justice? Should I only speak if it makes people comfortable and strokes their feelings of optimism? I don't think that is my role. I am a criminal profiler and I have always told it like it is and I am not going to stop now. I am certainly fine with opposing theories or purposes (some have to be the more positive ones), but my keeping it real shouldn't cause such malicious attacks except some people must really think I have hit the nail on the head and they don't like that this means there is not going to be a happy ending.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 14, 2014


  

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.

Thank You, Scotland Yard

As the week of digging up Portugal for no discernibly good reason comes came to a close, Kate and Gerry McCann told the press how pleased they were that Scotland Yard had put forth such effort but not found a dead Maddie. As they fly to Portugal on Sunday to testify against Gonçalo Amaral, their argument that he has caused them great emotional pain and damaged the search for Madeleine has not, in the end, been weakened by Scotland Yard's recent activities. In fact, Scotland Yard's Praia da Luz digging and subsequent statements have actually strengthened their case.

The massive money and time spent over the last three years and in the recent spectacle at the Snail go to show how difficult the struggle is to find Madeleine or at least what happened to Madeleine. Even Scotland Yard with their millions of pounds of taxpayer money haven't yet been able to solve the mystery, a mystery that wouldn't exist if the PJ hadn't failed so dismally in their investigation when the case was fresh and if Gonçalo Amaral hadn't wasted early opportunities to follow good leads to locate Maddie instead of being hellbent on convicting the McCanns. If even Scotland Yard can't seem to clean up the mess and bring this case to closure with so much money and manpower, the damage to the case by the Portuguese police's incompetence  and Amaral's refusal to consider any other theory than the McCann's involvement is quite obviously tremendous. And, if Scotland Yard with all their seemingly unlimited budget and detectives has not yet found Maddie, who can blame the McCanns for failing to find her, in spite of all the cash they have collected through their fund?

On top of all this, Scotland Yard has just issued this incredible statement:  "This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."

Two things jump out at me: the first thing is that the statement does not include the words "in the vacation flat" which means, at this point, Scotland Yard is not necessarily giving any credibility to the cadaver and blood evidence in the apartment. And this means their analysis does not support Amaral's conclusion, and in fact, indicates that he came to such a conclusion without reliable evidence; hence, he harmed the McCanns by claiming Maddie was dead, that she died in the apartment, and that her body was removed by the McCanns. The second thing that jumped out at me is that this is "just one hypothesis, " which opens the door for Maddie being alive which validates the McCanns' search, which in turn supports the McCanns' assertion that Gonçalo Amaral's claims in his book are libelous and damaging.

Thank you, Scotland Yard, for conducting this charade of an investigation which has worked out perfectly for the McCanns and been timed just right so that they can now enter the courtroom with their heads held high with just the added ammo they need to possibly win this outrageous and ridiculous lawsuit.

God help, Gonçalo.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 13, 2014 

 


Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.

Find a Burglar and Prove He Did It

A little while back, when I stated I believed this whole Scotland Yard investigation had zero focus on the McCanns, I said what Scotland Yard was likely doing was searching for Madeleine's body on land near where their key suspects either lived or worked. We have heard via the press (and although this information can be questionable, the Portuguese press seems to agree for once with the British press) that the scrubland area searched all last week was an area near to where at least one of the drug dealing suspects lived. Today, we get word that Scotland Yard has moved to a new location in the vicinity of a water and sewage plant four miles away in Lagos where dead heroin addict Euclides Monteiro worked.

There is actually nothing wrong with this strategy. It is a fact, for the most part, that killers dump or bury bodies quite near where they live or work, often within a mile of these locations. Why? Because when you get rid of a body, you want to make dead sure no one is watching you. Nothing worse than randomly choosing a little side road, pulling over, getting the body out of your trunk and as you go to dump it in the trees, you find a group of eight teens smoking weed staring at you; the spot you casually picked turns out to be a well-used teen hangout.

No, it behooves a killer to be sure that the spot he picks to rid himself of a body is isolated and witness-free. So, the killer goes to where he is very comfortable, a place he has been to or driven by dozens of times. And, naturally, the places you are most familiar with are locations connected to your own stomping grounds; home, work, relatives, friends, and pleasure spots. When you find someone going REALLY far afield to get rid of a body, it is almost always true that this is because he knows the victim and will become a suspect almost immediately. He wants that body far away and never  accidentally found.

So when Scotland Yard started doing their scrubland search, in an area that made no sense if they were looking at the McCanns, I had to conclude they picked it because it had some connection to another suspect. And there is a big problem with their methodology - outside of the fact they are totally ignoring the evidence that points to the McCanns - and that is they appear to be digging up areas based on suspects that do not yet have any evidence connecting them to the crime.

Now, I am sure I am going to see some commenter below say, "YOU don't know what Scotland Yard knows; maybe they DO have evidence linking drug dealers/burglars/pedophiles to Maddie's disappearance." Let me respond to that. Yes, it IS possible Scotland Yard knows something I don't about these men, but it can have nothing to do with hard evidence. Anyone who has read the files knows what the physical evidence indicates: Maddie died in the apartment and there was no proof of an abductor. Even if one somehow thinks an abductor came into the apartment and left no evidence (which actually is possible, but not probable), this would still mean that Scotland Yard has no physical evidence to link to these alleged suspects. Secondly, since they have not even questioned these suspects, they have no physical evidence from their houses or cars to link them back to the crime. This only leaves two kinds of "evidence"; that they used their cell phones somewhere in or near Praia da Luz (believe me, Scotland Yard cannot pinpoint the location of any call down to the block of the McCann flat or any burial spot) on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance or one of these guys said something like, "Yeah, I grabbed that little girl" whilst he was drunk off his arse. And though these bits of information might be interesting enough to warrant further investigation into these men, this kind of information in no way constitutes enough evidence to dig up Portugal. So, then why is Scotland Yard doing so?

There are only two possibilities in my mind: Andy Redwood is a pretty daft fellow (he was told to rule out the McCanns before starting and ignore any evidence related to them and he did just that) and has put the cart before the horse; he has jumped to the conclusion that these burglars/drug dealers were involved in the disappearance of Maddie without any real proof, and following the "nearby burial rule," has gotten all excited about solving the crime and raced on to find Maddie's body. It won't be the first time in law enforcement history this has happened; there is some odd thrill about looking for lost treasure - it just might be over there! And one just can't resist dogging it down (pun intended).

The other possibility is that this is the end show for wrapping up the case in the McCanns' favor. Find a good-enough suspect, one that can't disprove his involvement (because he is dead, in jail, or just such a loser no one will believe him anyway), do everything you can to retrieve Maddie's body from near to where he lives or works, and then close the case with a believable scenario (to those who have never read the PJ police files) and go home having tried your darnedest.

Either way, I don't see anything good coming of this ridiculous excess searching in all the wrong places; if you don't follow real evidence, all the digging in the world will not find you what you are looking for.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 8, 2014


 

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.

Why I Believe Smithman is Real and Likely to be Gerry

There is a lot of talk going on right now that the Smith family made up Smithman (all nine of them), that he never existed at all. I won't go into the all the theories on this out there, but I will tell you why I totally buy the Smith sighting: the McCanns themselves.

Yes, my Number One reason for believing the Smiths saw a man that looked like Gerry carrying a child toward the beach is the McCanns themselves. Because the McCanns refused to give the sighting credence when the police detectives and private detectives did. And this is strange behavior, indeed, for the parents of a missing child.

Across the board, parents of missing children will believe in the possibility of almost any sighting being their child. They ask you to run down the most ridiculous and unlikely "suspects' simply because the "what if" factor is there  - even if it is also "one chance in a million" - because they simply don't want to take a chance on that anomaly being true and ignoring a possibility to find their child. They will force their private investigators to follow every ridiculous lead "just in case," and PIs making $100/hr are more than happy to check out any and every so-called lead because they make a pretty good living doing so. (And getting your PI to privately take photos of a bunch of Gerry-look-alikes in Praia da Luz to prove Smithman isn't Gerry is not the same thing as acknowledging the sighting and truly going out to the public for help in finding the man).

But, here we have the McCanns, with two HUGE leads! Two very excellent leads: one that their trusted friend saw - a man coming right from their apartment carrying a little girl. Hey, if their friend isn't a liar (and the McCanns are innocent and didn't put her up to making this man up), HUGE lead. Yes, I get why they would want to follow this one, absolutely. But, then we have Smithman. Another HUGE lead. Same scenario as Tannerman, only instead of a trusted friend seeing a man carrying off a little girl, we have nine people saying they saw this. Again, HUGE lead! What parent of a missing child would have any good reason to believe one of these leads was absolutely true and the other one absolutely false? Both sightings were entirely possible with the supposed timeline, so why would the parents of a missing child have no interest in pursuing the second possible abductor, a lead as strong as the first, ignore one of only two leads they have?

The answer is this: there is NO parent of an kidnapped child who would ignore this lead. Not one. And since this is a fact, the McCanns ignoring this leads me to theorize that, they are not parents of a kidnapped child.

Kate McCann finally gives the Smith sighting credibility in her book but only if the Smith sighting is the same man as Tannerman. In other words, she admits its existence but still axes fifty percent of her chances of finding her daughter by ignoring this sighting as a true separate lead. Either she didn't want that badly to find Madeleine or she knew no sighting was going to bring her child back from the dead.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 6, 2014    
             


 

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.

How Madeleine Died During a Burglary

Right up the Rocha Negra from the Beach

I have worked on rare occasion for defense attorneys and more than once, when I have told them that their client was guilty, they then said, "Well, okay, but what other scenario could you come up with?" I would shake my head and tell them I wasn't going to make up something for them to defend their client with, but, you know, if you work hard enough at it, you can often come up with a plausible enough story that will make them happy (and earn you a few more dollars).

Right now, there is great hope that Scotland Yard is actually following the evidence in the files or perhaps a confession from the McCann group and they are searching for some intermediate grave that Gerry might have been miraculously able to dig in that rock hard ground with a Tapas spoon (as opposed to hiding Maddie's body in the easier spot on the Rocha Negra, in a crevices that already has gravel and loose rocks that could easily cover a body). Then he would have to unearth her again and carry her off another location (which I believe should be a place like Monte do Jose Mestre to the west of the town). Recovering Maddie's body from under some stones on the Rocha Negra is quite a bit easier than having to dig her up again from that wasteland.

Or, it could be that Scotland Yard is following the burglar theory. If I were concocting a plausible scenario for them, here is how it would go.

Burglar One enters the McCann flat through an unlocked door (wearing a skull cap to keep hair in place) and gloves so as not to leave fingerprints. As he is about to look around the living room, he hears Gerry turning the front door knob. Panicked, he flees into an adjacent room and hides behind the door. Gerry enters the children's room and the burglar presses himself up against the wall behind the door, daring not to breathe. Gerry looks about at the children and then leaves the room and the flat.

The burglar comes out of the room but hears Gerry outside talking to Jez. As he stands there frozen, trying to decide what to do, Maddie wakes up and comes out of the room. She sees the man and starts screaming. The burglar panics, grabs Maddie and covers her mouth with his hand. He doesn't realize as he is attempting to keep her quiet, that when one covers a small child's mouth, it is easy to also accidentally cover her nose as well, blocking both airways.

Gerry and Jez finish their conversation and they both move off. The burglar is relieved and takes his hand off Maddie's mouth. Then he looks down and is horrified. The child is not breathing. The burglar panics and doesn't know what to do with this dead child. He pulls the couch away from the wall and pushes Maddie's little body behind it. He rushes from the flat.

Once outside, he calls his other two burglar friends and asks them what they should do. They tell him h needs to remove the child's body because his DNA might be on her in some way or other. The burglars meet up with him and one watches the back of the flat and the other stands outside the window. Burglar One goes back in and opens the window of the children's room. He then goes into the living room and gets Maddie's body from behind the sofa and takes it to the window. He passes the child's body to Burglar 2 after they are sure no one is on the street to observe them. Then, he goes out the back and the burglars head away from the flat. Maddie's body remains in the flat long enough to account for the cadaver dog.

Burglar 2 is seen carrying the body of the child by the Smith family. He takes the child to one of the burglar's homes where they decide what to do next. Eventually, they decide to bury the child in a shallow grave in a scrubland nearby that one of the burglars knows well. One man digs while the other two stand guard. It is possible that they decided later that they should move the body to a place farther away or dump her in the ocean, so using the same three person system, they may have removed Maddie's body from Praia da Luz to a place from which it cannot be retrieved.    

I am sure many of you can argue that there are flaws in this scenario. But, if you think about it, there are difficulties with the McCann scenario as well. If you don't actually have to prove it in court, a scenario only has to be good enough to be accepted by the audience you are trying to influence.

This scenario isn't a bad one. The McCanns can't be blamed for being unaware that a burglary ring was operating in the area (that would be the resort's fault for failing to inform its guests) and Maddie would have died quickly in an unfortunate accident, something Kate could surely forgive the hapless burglar for.

The sex predator scenario also could be used with the same unfortunate accident occurring while trying to keep the child from screaming during an assault or attempted abduction. A little less savory but if there is a handy sex predator in the area (that guy in jail in England lived there), he could fit the bill just as well.

Once again, I hope I am wrong, but I would be a lot more confident that this investigation had taken a turn for the better if Scotland Yard were up searching on the Rocha Negra, a place which should have been the easiest location to get permission from Portugal to dig.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 3, 2014



 

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.

"We Just Want to Know What Happened to Maddie"

Really? That's all? Apparently, Isabel Duarte, the lawyer for the McCanns' libel suit is claiming this is what they want to know. Not only them, it seems, but Scotland Yard, too, is willing to settle for "just knowing."

A couple just heard their son was found hanging in an abandoned building days after he was last seen going out to retrieve his lost cell phone. They want to know what happened. A young man leaves a bar drunk and ends up in a river. The family wants to know what happened. A girl leaves home and she is found dead in a drug house. Her relatives want to know what happened. Why? Because they want to be sure there was no foul play and they want to know why their loved ones killed themselves, purposefully or accidentally.

When a small child "goes missing" and absolutely did not wander off and die of exposure, the family and police do not generally want to just "find out what happened." If there was an abduction, both the family and the police want the evildoer caught and imprisoned. If the police suspect the parents, they should want to bring justice to the child and remove fear from the community.

Most folks know that I strongly believe the Scotland Yard investigation is not basing their investigation on evidence, but working toward a story the public will accept. When I hear both the parents and the police just want to find closure and not necessarily justice, this only confirms, in my opinion, something just ain't right with what is going on in Praia da Luz.

I may find out I am wrong in a day or two and my mouth will drop open, but if what I am hearing or seeing is indicating that I am unfortunately correct with my analysis of the investigative methodology, then I think we are going to eventually hear that someone who lived or worked in PDL is a Gerry McCann look-a-like and there was information gleaned from the PJ files and from interviews with possible sex offenders or burglars that indicated Maddie was either buried nearby the suspect's home or place of employment or disposed of at sea. If they don't find her body, then the latter must be true.

By the way, one reason I find it hard to believe anyone specifically told them Maddie was buried in Praia da Luz is that Scotland Yard has asked to search more than one site. If an abductor had confessed, he would know where he put Maddie's body and if any of the Tapas 9 had confessed, then the police wouldn't be searching in Praia da Luz at all for Maddie's body (and they are ONLY searching - or pretending to be searching - for a body as the methods they are using indicate they are looking for a grave).

For you who think the tide is turning, try turning off your computers and just go watch the news; the majority of it is in favor of the McCanns and trust in Scotland Yard. Just think, if you who  have studied this case nonstop for years, have recognized the political backing the McCanns have had is extremely unusual, and yet you STILL think or at least hope that Scotland Yard is on the up and up, how much more so will the trusting population accept the outcome if Scotland Yard's investigation ends with a dead or imprisoned abductor and every media outlet carries the final conclusion with complete and unwavering acceptance?

Let's see what the next few days bring....hopefully, a better conclusion than I suspect. Keeping my fingers crossed for a miracle.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 2, 2014



 

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(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.