Monday, June 2, 2014

"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

 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.


Pat Brown said...

Here is an article on why Maddie's body is unlikely to be found:

Anonymous said...

Mr Redwood have said that in their thinking the child died in the apartment. Pat, what do you think he is basing this thinking on?
Why would a burglar carry away a dead child when he could be seen?
Why did the Met want to check bank accounts of possible burglars/old emplyees at the resort, if the child died in the apartment? They wouldn't be able to sell a dead child. Just trying to make any sence of anything.

Anonymous said...

I understand what you're saying, Pat. My thoughts have been the same as yours for a while. This case has been going on for far too long and I believe the reason is because SY are floundering to come up with a conclusion (not solution) that justifies the time and money wasted on this whole fiasco and more importantly, something a gullible taxpaying public will accept

Pat Brown said...

Anon 12:23

Maddie COULD have died in a kidnap attempt (suffocated by accident; it has happened in similar crimes before) and, in theory, a burglar could have tried to silence a screaming child. Probable? No, but possible.

But none of that matters because the evidence does not point to that. The only way Redwood can be claiming that happened is that he is focused on the McCanns or he is making up a story that will fit the final conclusion or he has a confession which I highly doubt. I go with Answer B.

guerra said...

No, Scotland Yard is not floundering they are doing what they were ordered to do by Mr. Cameron on behalf of Mrs. McCann, to bring "closure."

What would the McCanns consider to be closure? Closure would be Scotland Yard discrediting the conclusions of the original investigators and the ultimate in closure would be Mr. Amaral being found guilty of libel.

It's no coincidence that all this activity is taking place at the same time as the libel trial. It's no coincidence that when Mr. Amaral submitted the paper work regarding Madeleine's ward of court status that Scotland Yard accelerated their activity. And now that they know that the final hearing is on June 16, don't be surprised if Mr. Redwood presents his final narrative before then, a story that most likely Mr. McCann will use when he addresses the court in the final session.

Anonymous said...

Well then, Guerra,assuming you're correct, not long to wait eh? Those darn McCanns hold such power...who else has a prime minister to do their bidding, especially under these circumstances?

Anonymous said...

The immediate reports coming out are wholly supportive. I would not take too much notice of The Daily Mirror though since that is the "house journal" for the cause. You may as well take dictation direct from Clarence as that is pretty much what you are reading. However, the classic example of this is that the few MSM reports that mention the libel trial fail to mention the judge's comment. Which leads me to...

@guera. You are probably correct about the timings but the McCanns have to produce British High Court permission from 2009 to have sued Amaral on Madeleine's behalf. If this is a total stitch-up then I am sure that permission will magically appear. However, if they don't produce it, the case is dismissed. The judge was unequivocal in her words. So the likelihood is the case will be dismissed but the major focus is on the newly-found body or "result" thus being a good day to bury bad news - pun intended.

The only thing I can see coming out of this is that it is the end of the Find Madeleine/Pay for Litigation fund and the gullible public can stop throwing their hard-earned at it. BTW, the products are still active in the shop and you can buy them now...


Anonymous said...

And they have done a roaring trade in the last 24 hours

Anonymous said...

Just reading news articles from the past two days makes me wonder if the tide is turning.Never have two people had such power over the media.I don't think they are been supported by the media as everything is written with no libellous undertones.the media seem stuck between a hard rock and carter ruck.6

Sandra said...

Hi Pat,

Has Scotland Yard declared the evidence in the files inaccurate?What is their explanation for ignoring them?

What concerns me a whole lot is that the only possible explanation for Madeleines' disappearance seems to be abduction..why is that?

And the Mccanns' concerning behaviour and statements creeps me out. It's so upsetting to Watch them and realise it doesn't matter that they behave so suspiciously.. the way the move nervously, mess up their sentences, show no emotion.. but most just look so terribly guilty. I Think what strucks me the most is that their answers to questions about Madeleine feel so misplaced. The give answers they Think should be the right ones and the seasdon for that seems to be they don't know the real answer because their version of what happened to her is all made up. So they don't know how they as parents to a child that has been kidnapped should feel etc. Their answers are so stiff and plastic and general.. I just watched a couple of interviews with them and cannot get over this fact.. their behavior seems so revealing and yet they seem to be getting away with the's upsetting in so many ways.

I'm hoping for a miracle.

Thank you so much Pat for the insight and updates and clever Reviews on Scotland Yards charades.


Anonymous said...

They've already forgiven the abductor Pat, now they only want to know what happened and Scotland Yard just want to find some answers for them. Human curiosity, that's all.

Anonymous said...

For the libel issue, did not the judge say they could NOW try to get permission from British court regarding libel case aginst Mr Amaral in the name of Madeleine?
And if they did not succed to get permission, the claim reagarding Madeleine would be dismissed? Other part of the claim regarding hurt for siblings etc may still be valid then? Can someone please enlighten me on this.
Or did the judge say that the permission should have been secured previous to the claim?
If so they could secure permission and do everything all over again.
However, at this point even Mr Redwood have said that the child may have died in the apartment so that is support for the content of Mr Amaral's book./Catherine

guerra said...

The judge ruled that the McCanns need authorization from the High court in England to sue on behalf of Madeleine. The judge has decided that the final court hearing will be on June 16, but the representatives of the parties involved may suggest an alternative date if they cannot be present. After the last court session, proceedings will be suspended for 30 days allowing the McCanns to obtain the proper documentation giving them authorization to be awarded damages on Madeleine's behalf. If they are unable to do so then the defendants if found guilty will be absolved of have having to compensate the McCanns on the amount they requested for Madeleine, however they did ask to be awarded damages for themselves and the twins, so the case will not be dismissed.

Mr. Redwood is trying to fit his story to the facts and because the public hasn't seen the ending of the story yet they tend to have different reads on the snippets that have been released.
The dogs indicated that a dead body was present in the apartment so Mr. Redwood is trying to fashion his story to fit this fact.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Guerra

trustmeigetit said...

They stated bones have been found in anew article today.

I'm expecting it to be animal or not Madleine.

But sure would be the shock of the century (at least for us bloggers) if it turns out to be her.

But if it's her, I would honestly question if the body was again moved to that spot. Sounds morbid but I do not think that was Madeleines original resting place. hard as SY is trying to prove something....I sure would not put it past them to make something fit.

Now we wait for DNA results.

Article link