Saturday, June 14, 2014

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

 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 again thanks. Many are looking for light at the end of a very long and dark tunnel. But it isn't just going to happen.

There is no evidence to suggest the MET have interviewed Mr and Mrs McCann, their holiday friends (T7) and other witnesses, other than perhaps the mistaken Jane Tanner abductor aka creche-dad - one assumes he has been interviewed, or is it just a statement from the pile of private investigation files? who knows!

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest the Smith family have been interviewed and any substance given to their sighting. Other than the two e-fits found in the McCanns own investigative file, duly promoted on the crimewatch programme. Particularly as Mrs Tanner's sighting has been cleared off suspect list.

The paperwork exercise and dig continue.

When it happens, it happen. Whatever it is.


Anonymous said...

pat i do agree with everything you say.
you are realistic. this case is over
they will most probably never be charged..
it is unfortunate but it is like that
there are powers much stronger than you or amaral or bennett
so..too bad

Pat Brown said...

I have no problem hoping I am wrong, but, I would be a liar if I said I thought Scotland Yard was conducting a proper investigation, I thought the McCanns were going to be taken down, or that the chances of Amaral winning are up in the air and still has a good chance to be influenced by politics.

I have no problem being optomistic when there is evidence to warrant such a viewpoint. I wouldn't have worked so hard for a decade and a half if I didn't have soome optomisic moments! But, I have expereinced a lot during those years of poltics and egos and expediency being put above justice and public safety. It is what it is and, while I commend everyone for continuing to fight the good fight, it is sad to see people turning on each other as a possible finish line is in sight (a finish that will also be what it will be).

Anonymous said...

Agree completely regarding SY only investigating within their prescribed remit of stranger abduction. It is galling the amount of money being thrown at the emperor's new clothes. However, I believe the Portuguese justice system to be more transparent than UK (eg publishing the files) and have confidence in the judge adhering to facts and justice in this case.

Anonymous said...

I have an ominous feeling that you may be correct except I keep hanging on to the fact that this is about a small child and I can't help wondering how all those police officers could or would turn a blind eye to the evidence of her demise just for the sake of "political expediency". If that turns out to be true my faith in the whole system will be reduced to zero. Many others think as you do Pat, but I would like just one person to give me a clear answer as to why that should be the case? What is it that makes the authorities so reluctant or afraid to bring the McCanns to justice?

Alan J said...

I always believed they (McCanns) would get away with it. Too many friends in high places.

Anonymous said...

As though shooting down the messenger ever helped.

Anonymous said...

Yep the mccanns are seemingly above the law and if the authorities would give lie detector tests they never gave it might turn the tides some how.

Anonymous said...

Hi pat ,you are absolutely correct.Scotland Yard would not be into the 3rd year of this investigation if they were intent on charging the Mc Canns.They would have done this earlier on and not wasted years of work and millions of pounds.I can only assume the agenda was set before the investigation began.It angers me to know this is happening but I don't think the British public will be satisfactorily brainwashed with the end result.

Anonymous said...

Guilty through and through but justice prevails in the end, even if it isn't through our own legal systems.

trustmeigetit said...

I am sure the Mccanns visit your site and may be some of the commenters.

They sure aren't looking for Madeleine.

I bet they spent lots of time reading your blog. You are the enemy to them.

And I continue to have a lot of respect for you.

I used to watch Nancy Grace and Jane Valez and stopped once I heard them both defend the Maccann's.

They don't believe that but are also just going along with what they are told to say.

The world has not gotten ahead by just accepting the bullshit fed to us.

There is nothing in this case that says anything but that Madeleine died in that apartment and the neglectful Gerry and Kate are to blame.

I am team Pat.

Anonymous said...

Wake up people who think they are going to be charged. This has never been a normal case from the start.lets look at the influential people who have assisted the Mc Canns in one way or another.Gordon Brown,The pope, Carter Ruck,Clarence Mitchell ,enough ambassadors to fill your boots,Oprah Winfrey,the British Media and not forgetting Scotland Yard.I do believe the queen has yet to put them on her honours list!

Anonymous said...

I just think it's wrong that these two people are going to get away with killing their child accidentally or not. Look at the Ben needham case why hasn't that been as high profile as madeline. Because of Kate and Gerry having influential people right by their side. Why can't we just let the Portuguese police arrest their arsed and interogate them separately. I don't like them they have not shown anything but pure content to their daughter. How much money have they made from all the people putting into the fund millions. And what was it used for to pay their legal fees and mortgage.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree with your analysis of this case Pat. I cannot understand why some are upset by your blogs. I've posted on several threads stating to the effect that those hoping for "Justice For Madeleine" are idealists who do not understand how dirty politics is. And it is clear(or should be clear) that the McCanns have been protected by people in high places from day one. Yes, day one - even before the British Government arranged for them to be flown out of Portugal when they were made arguidos. You're also right about the libel trial. It is not clear-cut by any means that Amaral will win. May I quote a poster on youtube: "You would not rule out their (The McCanns) friends in high places being able to influence a Portugese court". Even if Amaral does win, it will be an inconsequential victory. When Scotland Yard finally exonerate the McCanns, Amaral's book will be to all intents and purpose discredited and will never be published in the UK.

Anonymous said...

I have always believed that it is not the parents that are being protected; they have just benefitted from the protection afforded to someone higher up the food chain. Has there ever been a missing person case like this ever?

AnneGuedes said...

@ Anonymous 4:48
Of course SY would never spend over 10 millions £ just to find out that the McCanns made their daughter's body disappear, something which isn't a crime (but a misdemeanour) in Portugal and would be punished with a fine.
The issue isn't Madeleine (no mystery), but all that came after.
And we have to admit that the McCanns aren't the responsible ones for that, even if they are at the origin of that mess. The system is, the credulity is, the circumstances, the authorities' self respect, the pensée unique (single thought) etc. are. That interesting and important part is available to analyse and that's what we should do. Forget the McCanns, they're just a mistake of History.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, Anne. I don't know what you mean, but it sounds Nietzsche (which can only be good).

Pat, the aggravation you're getting is just because many people are stressed hoping for the best. All cases are emotional of course but this one more than most (especially in the UK).

Most of us are grateful for your continued interest in the case though.

Anonymous said...

Very stressed in some cases.

guerra said...

Pat, I do believe the media, the McCanns and even SY read blogs and people's comments online to gauge how they are succeeding in conning the public and yes to come up with new ideas when their imagination fails them. Some blogs have been threatened by the McCann's lawyers and some have caved in to that pressure.

What we are witnessing is SY devaluing the case files and the conclusions of the original investigators, that's all it is.

Do you know what the people who are criticizing you will say when SY ends their investigation and divulges their complete narrative which reiterates their conviction that the child was abducted? They will say, well they couldn't solve the case so they came up with a story to save face. And their admiration for Scotland Yard will not be diminished.

Anonymous said...

Anecdotal evidence amounts to nothing I know, but I've never forgotten two off the cuff remarks that I heard from people whose work brought them into regular contact with SY (nothing at all to do with this case).
As regards integrity and competence, they certainly weren't flattering. "Impossible to work with" was the term used by one (as it happens a US citizen).

Many people in the UK seem to inhabit a cosy imperialistic time warp in which the assumption is that UK standards are the benchmark. This has long since ceased to be the case (if it ever was), and I think that the rest of the world knows it.

Goncalo Amaral may not be perfect, but he is worth more than entire combined 'efforts' of the UK's largest, and supposedly most prestigious force.

He will always be the winner.

I hope that he knows that. I'm certain that his family and friends do.

Madeleine has lost, certainly. But then we don't choose our parents.

In the long term, it is those people who are willing to pervert the possibility of justice who are the most serious threat to the safety of children. (Eh...Mr Redwood?)

People such as the McCanns (and sadly far worse) have always existed.

Anonymous said...

I've always thought the McC's were guilty of her murder, probably accidental, but still murder, through either an overdose or neglect or both. But I feel the main question that needs answering is Why are they so important to not be charged with at first neglect and abandonment, by leaving their children alone and why they are being protected by every department in the uk right to the very top? Why if Gerry was already on the sex offenders register were these children not being watched over by social services. Why didn't these facts flag up earlier.there is something far deeper than just a child's abduction(allegedly), than we will ever know.

Anonymous said...

Well, if SY had this task given to them from politics, to investigate something with limitations as where not to go, and not to investigate, SY cannot possibly have been to happy to start with. Maybe even SY work for history, to tell politicians to leave policing to police and to not interfere as to how investigetions shall be be done. Because if they do, it may be very expensive.

MRSFeeX said...

Well. Ive said it before..
Money is a real religion.
If indeed 'The Abducter' did like to see hurt parents in pain.
Than you go to media..
Selling your familyalbum..

Gerry says: "If we could turn back the clock we would. Of course we wouldn't do something like leave the twins alone like that now."

The (children/)Twins?

Anonymous said...

The WHY seems to be the big question and this should really be considered more.

In my opinion its simple, it is just that many people are afraid to accept the true reality of what is happening....and for maybe understandable reasons.
For this case to have proceeded the way it has, there has had to be intervention at the highest Political levels - you do not need to scratch the surface of this case to confirm such as happened - its all there for anyone to see, who are interested in looking for the truth and not the re-write of events that's been orchestrated through the largely Mainstream media presented to the public ....who incidentally through the monotonous publicity of the case been pushed on them...are all sitting up and know something is not right, further the media are bluffing when they speak as if they represent the peoples view, they are in fact trying to impart that view....the Public have seen through it.

The nuts and bolts of the Problem is Complicity...plain and simples.

Now when you start to realise who the complicit people in this case are and their positions, standings in life....well it would turn things more than upside down....It really is an extremely serious case, on so many levels.
The reality is that in solving what really happened to Madeleine McCann would result in many professionals been arrested also, given the immediate post reaction and agenda to protect those initially involved, it has snowballed to many more dragged into committing crimes
It has become so convoluted that I believe that a decision has been made to allow Goncalo be the fall guy ...rather than expose and risk "national security".


Tony Bennett said...

In the first comment posted, 'Anonymous' wrote: "Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest the Smith family have been interviewed and any substance given to their sighting. Other than the two e-fits found in the McCanns own investigative file, duly promoted on the Crimewatch programme. Particularly as Mrs Tanner's sighting has been cleared off suspect list".

I reply to correct the above.

Operation Grange has stated on the record that Martin Smith has been interviewed by Grange TWICE, once in 2012 and once in 2013. This effectively means that either Grange has twice visited Martin Smith in Ireland OR Grange has paid for Smith to have two trips to London.

Now, if you link that with the prominence given to the 'sighting by the Irish family' on Crimewatch, 14 Oct 2013, it is crystal clear that 'Smithman' forms a critical, crucial element on Grange's thinking.

We then need to link that with the fact that the McCanns have steadily promoted the Smith sighting since 2009. He was featured in the Channel 4/Mentorn Mockumentary in May 2009. He has been featured day by day on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website for the past 5 years.

And 'Smithman' is mentioned on 6 pages of Kate Mcann's book, 'madeleine', with a 3-page feature comparing the 'striking similarities' between Tannerman and Smithman.

Thus the Smithman sighting gradually moved up to the centre of the McCann Team's thinking, and no doubt has been at the centre of DCI Redwood's thinking for a long time (he or one of his team interviewed Martin Smith back in 2012).

The question is: why do the McCann Team and Grange attach such significance to this sighting. I suggest it is because, when they wind up their investigation, probably in the next few months, they will declare: 'Smithman abducted Madeleine'.

Which would be perverse for all sorts of reasons.

Not least because of the many question marks over whether the Smiths saw anyone at all.

Tony Bennett

Anonymous said...

Wrong place for this Tony. If you want to libel an entire family, keep it on your forum mate.

Anonymous said...

You are seeing conspiracy Tony when it's most likely the efits were only used to justify money spent (Redwood in 2013, private detectives in 2008).

Nobody ever took them seriously imo

Anonymous said...

That's not to say the family themselves shouldn't be taken seriously.

But they were used, in 2008 (KH's mob, 2009 (Cutting Edge) and 2013 (Crimewatch).

Anonymous said...

Hello!... you're right I think - money is at the root of a lot of this.
The 'magnetism' of the McCann case for many of the UK political and media world has been exploitation. They exploit to make money, for publicity and for their careers.

AnneGuedes said...

Can someone provide a link to the assumption that OP met the Smith family ?

AnneGuedes said...

Sorry I meant OG !

Anonymous said...

In my opinion Tony Bennett (I don't know him personally, though I have no qualms saying...I respect his intelligence and effort for Justice) is correct to highlight these areas, it is through fear that injustice is allowed to thrive.

We have to realise that the Smith sighting was never a 100% fact I would have interpreted more as a sighting that was a solid alibi for Robert Murat not been the smithman.....and a 60 - 80% identification of Gerry McCann - which has no value in a courtroom ultimately...though the solid identification of Not been Robert Murat does have weight legally.

when investigations are most effective ..I would imagine is when they are fearless.

Investigations have to consider human natures I would imagine, If for instance a close friend was been set up as a fall guy for an event you know he had not committed, and the odds were stacked against him ...he fitted the "profile"...but a statement you made could save the injustice....I am not saying that is the case....but am not naïve to think these things don't happen in life.

If you want to turn over all stones...there should be no problem.


AnneGuedes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AnneGuedes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AnneGuedes said...

Martin Smith said he never talked to Robert Murat, he knew who he was for having seen him in a bar and likely because Murat is perfectly bilingual (it always attracts the attention of those who aren't).
There's nothing in the files that suggests that the Smiths reported Smithman in order to exonerate Murat.
There's evidence that the PJ was trying to corroborate the suspicions of Jane Tanner, the journalist and the 3 Tapas friends about Robert M.
This is why imo Martin Smith didn't state but was asked whether Smithman was Robert Murat.
You're right, Mojo, that a 60-80% similarity between Smithman and GMC, even if found by 2 witnesses, hasn't much value in Court. But a 100% opinion that Murat wasn't Smithman is valuable.
Note that Martin Smith avoided any questioning of the rest of the family saying preventively that they didn't agree with his feeling.
This is very different from stating that GMC wasn't Smithman..

Anonymous said...

In my opinion it is more than fair to say and I am no legal expert, just really applying common sense and reason to my thought process.

In the complex world of law enforcement ..I would imagine that witness statements are categorized, one of the categories I presume would be whether the witness is independent to any of the people associated with the allegations.

It helps clear any concern for potential vested interests...the same for jury selections....its an integral part of the justice system.

This highlights that we can all be vulnerable to been bias, and any fair-minded persons will accept that has been part of All our Human natures...its inbuilt extension of looking after those close to you.

The system to be Fair and Just as to be above that mind-set even though it can be a form of mitigation in some cases.

I bet past case law could demonstrate many cases of all sorts of differing people rich, poor, religious, non religious etc. ...where families have give false statements to protect their children and similar.

its Life.
Does anyone disagree?


AnneGuedes said...

It is common practice to reject a juror who can't possibly be objective. Like in a paedophilia trial a juror who was molested in his childhood.

Anonymous said...


At what stage was the investigation was when Goncalo Amaral was removed ?

what were his next priority steps to be followed ?
were they carried out by his successor ?

Does / could it explains the limited files


Anonymous said...

I would like to make this totally clear...I know nobody connected to this case.

I believe that Goncalo Amaral was coordinating the case like a true expert.

I think its criminal what has been waged against him...and that his book is an accurate truthful reflection of his part in the Investigation.. as the files reflect.


AnneGuedes said...

Mojo, I have no doubt that GA was conveniently kicked off a case that wisdom recommended to drop. Remember how they searched actively in September for a body around the G5. This was the PJ's last hope but they found nothing and without a body they knew they had no case, they knew the parents would always deny,having nothing to gain saying the truth. Do you grill parents who have lost their child and are obviously heartbroken ?
But GA, perhaps irritated for having let himself to be intimidated (this was more imaginary than real imo), was decided to explore the Martin Smith's new lead. This would lead nowhere, as you say, but to troubles.
There was no conspiracy, just a police who couldn't prove anything and authorities who preferred not to know what had happened really.
The AG report is clear : the McCanns were punished enough, the AG was sure that they didn't kill their child, morality was safe.
But this was one year after !
All what happened since then brought the case far beyond the limits of a child's death through some accident where one of the parents was likely involved. This is the McCanns' work and they did it because the AG report was no exoneration and stepping back would have been acknowledgement of guilt.
I can't blame the Portuguese who were so badly treated to have discarded the case by shelving it. But it opened the way to all sorts of attempts to convince the planet that the parents were victims, disguised in search for Madeleine.

Anonymous said...


I do not agree...I totally respect you ....but can not accept everything you are saying ..if I am understanding your post correctly that is.

Your first sentence disturbs me slightly, are you implying that a wise move for Goncalo would have been to let go of the case? the same as advised by his colleagues ?

He was a Policeman employed to hold up Law and Justice, its what the man dedicated his life to....its never "wise" to lose who you are...and we should be glad their are people like him.

your next point I am lost on also...are you implying that cases only get solved when the "body" is know that's not true.
I am still at a loss as why phone information was denied...and the basic information requested from the UK been denied or questioned....the backwards and forwards was a joke for basic requests some never granted.... stalling progression at crucial times.
Then the FSS report fiasco etc ....what's your view on that?

I am sorry but I believe their is a huge conspiracy at the foot of this case and I am not afraid to use the word, in fact I am shocked that for someone who has been an inspiration in this case, that you are saying what you are.

All what happened since could not be coordinated by just the parents.

I am confident there as been much conspiring taking place... 100% confident has my posts have me its up their with the gunpowder plot in the conspiracy stakes.


AnneGuedes said...

Hi Mojo,
No, I'm not implying that GA should have dropped the case. Not at all. But he shouldn't have said what he did (and he knows it). I can understand he did, though, and I think he didn't have the support that the complexity of the situation required.
I don't remember if I developped in a comment what I think was his main mistake.
It's not very original to say that cases without a body are very difficult to resolve.
I really don't think that these people talked about the concealment of the body on the phone. I even think that they went out at sunrise to be able to speak privately.
I don't believe at all in a conspiracy.
All started with a rumour "shutters and window jemmied" that lasted for months in spite of having been denied the following day (but the more you try to kill a rumour, the more you spread it).
The planet believed it and, unfortunately, the authorities included.

guerra said...

AnneGuedes, the authorities Portuguese and English alike believed the child died in the apartment and they believed that the child's body was disposed of by the parents. That is well known.

"Do you grill parents who have lost their child and are obviously heartbroken?"

What kind of statement is that?

The main priority of a police force is to find out what happened to the child. The police were faced with contradictory statements by the parents and their friends, dogs detected the smell of death and blood in the apartment and the McCann's vehicle, and you think it was inappropriate for the police to confront the parents and question them? Do you know where the Portuguese police went wrong in this case, they went wrong when they,(I'll borrow a phrase from Mr. Amaral), treated the parents with tweezers. The police worried too much about what the world would think instead of doing their job, something I doubt would have happened in France or most other European countries. They worried so much about what the world would think that they avoided doing a reconstruction and they let England take care of most of the forensics.

This whole affair reeks of conspiracy, people conspired to protect the parents; it's evident.

The media has conspired; they censored people and attacked their views.

Do you think the following events are just coincidences?

The parents traveling to the European parliament flanked by politicians on the very day Mr. Rebelo was allowed to come to England to witness the interrogation of the Tapas group.

Open letters in a newspaper between Mrs. McCann and Mr. Cameron to get a review started, which Mr. Cameron announced on the eve of Mrs. McCann's book release.

Mr. Redwood going to talk shows to declare that the McCanns are not suspects.

Theresa May requesting that SY be on Portuguese soil just when Mr. Amaral's libel trial was about to commence.

Do you actually believe that what SY is doing is an investigation?
Do you actually believe that someone came forward after 7 years to claim that he was the man Tanner saw? Do you actually believe they have any intention of bringing criminal charges against anyone?

What SY is trying to do is to make people forget what is in the case files and the conclusions of the original investigators.

Anonymous said...

guerra, give Anne a chance to explain what she means.

It's very easy I think to misunderstand individual sentences if the context in which they were made isn't known or appreciated.

Anonymous said...

A lot of your questions nobody knows the answers to. How could we know?

AnneGuedes said...

Well, Guerra, let me not agree with you, except on the point about the PJ not treating the parents how they should have. But what has that to do with a conspiracy ?
Soares Oliveira agreed that the intimidation was more imagination than reality.
SY has been requested to find an abducted child and that's what they're trying to do. No more, no less.
Very rare are the people who have read the files. There's no need to make them forget.

AnneGuedes said...

Thank you, Anonymous 8:19.
What I meant is that it's not an easy task for a police officer to suspect parents who are obviously devastated.

guerra said...

The Portuguese police behaved the way they did because they got caught up in the media, they started reading and listening to the stories that were being disseminated worldwide, that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. I never said it did.

They haven't read the files, but a lot of people have read Mr.Amaral's book which is based on the files. The point is if you have a renowned police force supposedly dedicating so many resources to a case and telling you that the couple had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance, most people are likely to believe them.

Anonymous said...

If they can't prove otherwise, guerra, they have no choice but to say that in public (or the next people to be sued could well be the police).

There's no doubt the lawyers will be watching every word that is printed and said.

It's easy for us online to speculate, but it's not easy to be the police in such a unique and complicated case.

guerra said...

Mrs. McCann asked for the review so was it necessary for Mr. Redwood to make all those TV appearances and to state that the McCanns are not suspects. Don't you find that strange.

Everything Mr. Redwood and company do is for the cameras it has nothing to do with an investigation, helicopter rides, picking at a thin layer soil at the borders of a terrain so they can be within camera range etc.

When you know that what you are doing is not going to result in anyone being brought before a court to face charges, you can invent all kinds of characters like "creche dad" for example. You can choose from a list of people who have criminal records and made calls on that night and declare them to be suspects. When all you're doing is creating a story for public consumption your limits are your imagination.

Anonymous said...

I'm not convinced they know what they're really doing. They didn't volunteer to be involved in the case and before they began the review they'd know very well it's an extremely tricky case (all they had to was speak to Leicestershire Police).

I agree with you that much of their activity does appear to have been as concerned with public relations as anything else.

That's not a good sign but I'm with Anne, I don't see 'conspiracy'.

I think they've just been given Mission Impossible. (Unless they stumble on significant evidence, or someone speaks.)

At the moment it doesn't look good but they may yet surprise us.

guerra said...

I'm not going to bang my head against a wall any longer. I'll just say this if by some miracle Mr. Redwood stumbles upon evidence which incriminates the McCanns and decides to do the right thing, contrary to what I believe he was instructed to do. When the case goes to trial and the defense attorney finds out that creche dad doesn't exist then the credibility of every piece of evidence that SY presents will be brought into question.

Anonymous said...


out of interest when was the first sign of political support in the case.
When did the British Ambassador get involved?


Anonymous said...

«I have always believed that it is not the parents that are being protected; they have just benefitted from the protection afforded to someone higher up the food chain (...)

June 14, 2014 at 8:09 PM»

I think you are 100% right. With a slight adjustment, IMO it's not "someone" that is being protected, it is "something" (info) that is being kept from the British people

Anonymous said...

«the McCanns made their daughter's body disappear, something which isn't a crime (but a misdemeanour) in Portugal and would be punished with a fine.»

Ann, i don't know where you get this information from, but it is wrong. Concealing a corpse is, indeed, a crime, described and punished under Artº. 254(1)(a) of the Portuguese Criminal Code.

AnneGuedes said...

A child abducted from bed ! Have you seen that happen already in Europe ? You haven't, it never happened. One seemed to happen in the UK but was discovered as a staged one (the Kent case). For some reason the bed, especially of an infant, is kind of sacred. This is where we are born and this is were we die, most of the times.
If you add up the spectacular jemmied shutters and window you can't then be amazed that the British Ambassador was in PDL two days later. Also the parents were doctors (the most respected profession), middle class and without any particularity but they were British.

AnneGuedes said...

@ Anonymous 8:09
Too many "important persons" have involved themselves in a public and challenging compassion. They are the one who require protection.
The McCanns are just a little couple of no importance at all. They knew they were vulnerable without the authorities'support.
The horrified reactions of editors (what will readers think of us if this is true ?) on the 9th of September when the arguidos news popped up illustrates this very well.
BBC Radio 4

Anonymous said...

History doesn't really repeat
itself you know. (it just often

People often tend to allow
media influence (in it's variety
of outlets ranging from t.v.
shows, news broadcasts, and
movies etc.) to dictate the
nature of their belief.

This is nothing new, and sad
to say the majority of people
out there could not form an
original opinion based on
critical thinking if their
miserable lives depended on

Scotland Yard's media-influenced
reputation grossly exceeds it's
assumed talents, and anyone with
half a wit should know that.

I've yet to read anything you
have written that strikes me
as unreasonable, or even imp-
probable really, but anyone
who speaks out against the
Conventional Voice will be
drowned out by it's Supporting

I've always considered the
Mcann's (or one of their close
friends) to be responsible
and don't think there will be
a happy ending. It's even
possible that the mcanns and
one or more of their friends
worked in concert to conceal
the crime committed.

Too much time has passed and
I'll be surprised if there's
ever any resolution on this

It'll be another John Benet

Anonymous said...


what about the emails ?

the correspondence explaining that the statements were conflicting etc.
FOI refusal "national security"


AnneGuedes said...

Which e-mails, Mojo ?

Anonymous said...

Ann....have a read through this page...its worth refreshing.

top link....have a good look.

Your Own Ex Police Co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral is telling you now that its a conspiracy.

the lids been blown off the case at last.

Ann if you get chance ...see if you can address my concerns on the ward of court issues raised.


Anonymous said...


The obstruction in this case by the authorities has been criminal.

Just looking through that link I have provided demonstrates something sinister afoot.

I an sorry but I am at a loss at people who cannot see the conspiracy that has played out since day 1

It is my opinion that the present Portuguese court is not following correct procedures presently also.


AnneGuedes said...

Mojo, can you please elaborate concerning the Portuguese court not following correct procedures ?

AnneGuedes said...

Mojo, Recently GA suggested that Prof Harrison was expected by secret agents when returning to the UK in August 2007. He would have said so to a PJ officer who told it to GA. In what language were those exchanges? And why would Prof Harrison have given a person who just accompanied him to the airport such a confidential information ?
Perhaps you will suggest that Prof Harrison some time after left the UK for Australia ?

Anonymous said...


I have elaborated on the WOC issues.

I don't believe this issue has been resolved and its fundamental to the case.

read my posts in "the court of law and court of life blog"


MI5 were waiting for him at the airport we are told....but that is not what I am addressing presently.

Anonymous said...

Guerra: June 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Brilliantly argued Guerra! I could not have phrased it better!

You could have added the Chipping Norton Set to help sceptics understand better the role of Rebekha/Charlie Brooks/David Cameron in the context of Scotland Yard's recent "Media staging" in PdL.

Sceptics ought not to underestimate the connection Matthew Freud/Freud Communications/Clarence Mitchell, either for obvious reasons - Elizabeth Murdoch (...)

Clarence "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell if, of course, the McCanns' spokesperson, Director of Burson-Marsteller (UK) - reputation managers "par excellence" with 67 wholly owned offices and 71 affiliate offices in 98 countries across six continents.

And if that is not enough for heal the blind they should bear in mind "Mickey Mouse" (as Mitchell is known in London journalistic circles) is a candidate for the Conservative Party in the next UK General Elections under the tutelage of David Cameron, who has himself ordered Scotland Yard "Media staging". Small world indeed (...)

: ) It is "conspiracy theory" alright! British Ideology and Cultural Hegemony at work, more likely. Same principle apply to sceptics (...)

Zizi Duarte

Anonymous said...


Agree conspiracy.

"British" ideology please enlighten me.

I am an English man first British second.
I am interested to know what ideology you have given me.


AnneGuedes said...

MI5 were waiting for him at the airport we are told..
It's pure hearsay and possibly some lost in translation.
Now one can expect that the British authorities wanted to know what their expert nb 1 in missing persons had found in PDL. But MI5 !!!

I found your allusion to the WOC statute, but failed to understand what you mean. The Portuguese judge expressed herself very clearly on that matter.

Anonymous said...

I was lead to believe Margaret Hodge Oppenheimer's nephew made a sharp exit in PDL. It may well be an innocent coincidence but that's a strong link to UK government, and possible reason for involvement. Hodge is no stranger to organised child abuse rings but in her defense she might be just another politician protecting her family wealth.

Anonymous said...

Pat - have you seen Richard Hall`s documentary on Madeleine - it`s really highlights all the suspect goings on in this case.
I have just bought it for £20. from Richplanet On line Store at or can be watched for free at