Friday, June 6, 2014

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    

 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...

Hola Pat.

The entire British media almost completely ignored it as well.

Possibly because it features prominently in Mr Amaral's book?

It's certainly odd.

Pat Brown said...

Kevin, Gerry's whereabouts exactly at that time have never been adequately established. Regardless, this has no bearing on why the McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting as a possible abductor. Furthermore, IF it is absolutely true that Gerry was accounted for at 10 pm, the McCanns would not have to worry one sweet moment that the fellow the Smiths saw looked like Gerry because he would have a rock solid alibi. But, they DID worry, now didn't they? Why would that be?

Pat Brown said...

Truly, it matters not whether the detectives ignored the Smith sighting or the media ignored the Smith sighting, but that the McCanns ignored the Smith sighting is the biggest red flag in this who missing child case and the absolutely strongest piece of evidence that the McCanns have something to hide.

utahagen said...

Exactamundo, Pat! It's always been glaringly obvious to me that Smithman exists and was probably Gerry (or someone in cahoots with Gerry) because the McCanns, who would have flown off to Tazmania to chase down wacky leads of Madeleine lookalikes, consistently have ignored/dismissed the Smithman sighting. Especially since it would be possible that Smithman was carrying a living child -- one who was sleeping or unconscious, as opposed to dead -- and since the McCanns maintained Madeleine was alive someplace, WHY would they not have wanted to chase this lead?! The only explanation is that the McCanns knew that Smithman was Gerry (or a cohort) and that he was carrying a dead Madeleine to some hiding place. If THAT lead were followed up on, they knew ploice would find a dead Madeleine, or vestiges.

On another note, Pat -- may I call you, "Pat" -- please KEEP posting. As I wrote on another website, I've been hoping you have exaggerated your belief in a whitewash as a way to let PJ/SY know that you are not going away, even if they the PJ/SY announce that aliens abducted Madeleine and that she now lives in Mars.

Atlal Roma said...

I do think its odd that they worried about the smith sighting. A distraught parent would hold on to finding the man in both sightings what if as you say...yet they focus on the tanner sighting only. Pat i dont understand about the hire car and how the McCanns were airing it out, few weeks after. And how cadaver odour was found by sniffer dogs. If gerry was the smith sighting didnt he walk to the beach with m in his arms? Whats the theory with the car? I did read amarels theory on the case but i didnt understand this aspect of the case. Thanks roma

MRSFeeX said...

Do you think that is why J.T also came with 'Tannerman'?
Because Gerry was seen?
2 different efits...

AnneGuedes said...

GMC was sitting at the Tapas table when KMC raised the alarm. But it wasn't yet 10pm then and Madeleine was still in the flat.The confusion that followed was the best of alibis, if the Smith family hadn't chosen to go up Escola Primaria shortly after 10.

Dawn Kell said... was mentioned that the 'man' carrying the body may have hidden the body away from the initial site...maybe the car was then used to move a 'body' the car is definitely a factor and to me a piece of the jigsaw. I have truly believed the mcanns DO know more about the disappearence. Grief does do -as we are told- strange things...and there are too many strange and odd behaviours which have not been addressed.

However, i may Never find satisfactory answers or hear conclusions that justify leaving small children alone at home and certainly not abroad! I believe that the whole group that evening have conspired to with hold information to protect their 'friends' and using their individual and collective statuses to defraud the public of the truth....after all....whose going to question professionals?!? They are medical professionals lest we forget! I know im going on a bit...but the car..the smiths me will all fit into place.

Lets hope that justice can be obtained for the little girl...

Anonymous said...

pat you are spot on again never have I heard of parents acting like this before my brother in law is well up in law and he thinks mc cans guilty as hell but sad to say thinks its the biggest whitewash he has seen in 30 years of him deal with cases keep up the good work pat also I have never seen such cold people as kate and Gerry its all been about them not poor maddie

Anonymous said...

And another thing...whether you go along with Stephen Birch's theory or not, Kate's reaction was, "Who is he,anyway?" Your words, Pat,any parent would follow up on any lead. especially when this random bloke had spent thousands of his own money. It just doesn't make sense

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pat Brown said...

Kevin, I am not going to argue the witness issues and the 10 pm issue with you. I repeat, if the Smith sighting cannot possibly be Gerry, then the McCanns should be shouting this sighting from the rooftops even if the guy looks a bit like Gerry. We all know that witnesses having only a momentary look can only give generalities about a person barring that there is something extraordinary about the person like he has a Mohawk and a swasttika tattooed on his cheek. What thee Smiths saw was a white male of a certain age range with a brownish hair color carrying a child. I have no doubt one can run around Praia da Luz during tourist season and find quite a few British males that an fit the e-fit. The fact the McCanns did NOT want to consider this sighting of someone carrying off a little child one of the most important leads any parent of a missing child could be so lucky to have is astounding, unless of course they are not parents of a missing child and the LAST thing they want anyone to do is focus on the Smith sighting.

Pat Brown said...

Utahagen, you may indeed call me, Pat, as all my friends do.

Actually, I wish I could say you had a correct theory when you think I am just needling Scotland Yard with the whitewash thing, but, no, I do not believe I have a shred of influence over them;

No, sadly, I am just calling it like I see it. Some may wonder why I don't just keep quiet - I would get in a lot less trouble that way - but one problem I have seen with profiling in the past is that profilers hide their analyses so we can't ever determine if any of them were accurate, or, where they might have gone wrong. I am willing to explain my analyses and then people can learn from both my successes and my mistakes.

The only problem one has when one goes public prior to any case being "solved," is that IF the case is closed erroneously through a patsy or false evidence or an incorrect scenario, then people will think the profile is wrong and the profiler incompetent. And, more unfortunately, oftentimes law enforcement and the prosecution even can make claims that are not supported by evidence and the public simply believes them because they are the authorities and must be telling the truth.

Scotland Yard's handling of this case is beyond troubling which is why I am having a hard time believing they are conducting it properly. Those that believe they are after the McCanns, I believe are going to find out very soon (if not already considering the news of the drug dealing suspects living near the search area - exactly the scenario I believed we would hear) that Scotland Yard is looking at a stranger abduction. Those that always believed the McCanns to be innocent will have their faith validated.

If and when it becomes clear that Scotland Yard is investigating only the abduction theory, then those of who believe in the McCanns' guilt have only two options: to admit they were wrong about the McCanns or admit they were wrong about Scotland Yard.

As for me, unless Scotland Yard can prove to me by way of actual evidence that Maddie was truly kidnapped by strangers, then I will continue to believe the evidence points to the McCanns and they are being protected by someone or some group in the UK with immense power.

Pat Brown said...

Kevin, your last comment has been deleted and your future posts will not be allowed on this board. This IS my blog and being rude toward me is unacceptable.

Pat Brown said...

Kevin, please post elsewhere. All you comments will be removed.

Pat Brown said...

Out of respect for other people who I don't require to have their comments moderated, Kevin, please stop coming to my blog.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Pat, you know a lot more about this case than me and I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't it also possible that the Smith sighting was fradulentant and that the Mccanns have avoided making a great deal of it (or kept it low profle in regards to Tanner's sigting) because they know that it will only reflect badly on them?

The statement may be false but with the finger of suspicion having fallen on the Mccanns (as it once did) this could have been the (erroneous)straw that broke the camels back. Of course they could have come out and contradicted it, but with Gerry presumably up to no good at this time anyway, they might have been uneasy about revealing details of where they really were when the Smith sighting happened.

utahagen said...

Pat, OK, I now accept that you are indeed pessimistic about the chances that SY will finger the McCanns. If SY indeed does end up claiming this was some kind of burglary-gone-wrong, please don't go away, ok? I have read everything out there about this case since MMcC disappeared seven years ago and I am as convinced the McCanns were responsible for M's disappearance as I was that OJ was the one who murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Rob Goldman. Although I was miserable when OJ was acquitted, I took heart in how many Americans were as disgusted as I was. So, again, keep talking no matter SY comes out with in a few weeks or months.

Pat Brown said...

Thomas, I agree that could be a possibility but if losing a chance to find you child just because a few people you don't know are going to say crap about you is unlikely. As long as the police know you are not guilty, really, the rest of the world doesn't matter.

Now, could it be they are guilty but Gerry ISN'T Smithman. Yes, but then, like you point out, his alibi would have to be seriously in question and he would have to be running around Praia da Luz in another spot with Maddie and some other dude with a kid doesn't want to come forward for also odd reasons. Too much too believe, for me. I think it simply is that Gerry was seen and, although the Smiths cannot 100% identify him, there is no use encouraging people to focus on the Smith sighting just in case that alibi is going to be seriously questioned (or the timing of the Smiths, etc) or someone else saw him as well and hasn't come forward.

Truly, the sighting remains a question mark, but the McCanns downplaying is not.

Pat Brown said...

Well, Utahagen, it remains to be seen how this ends and then if there is anything to still talk about. I have other cases that have met a similar end and because they were not big cases in the media, they went quietly away into the mist, no one but a few the wiser.

Sometime watch the movie, The Pledge, with Jack Nicholson. Painfully true movie and I can say that I know exactly how the protagonist feels because I have also been there and had that done to me. Bad luck and bad politics sometimes screw people over and they can never prove that this is so to the majority of people. If Goncalo ends up being the big scapegoat in all of this, I feel for him because he is likely only going to have a small group of supporters who believe in him while the larger world with buy whatever Scotland Yard and the media sell them.

Anonymous said...

Checking in again to see what "Pat's thoughts" are today. I am struck by the simplicity of your insight - that parents of a missing child would follow any lead no matter how fragile.
What came to mind when I was reading about "Tannerman" and "Smithman" is that the resort was said to have been very quiet because it was so early in the season. What are the chances of several men carrying children around one small area of Praia at around the time that Madeleine is supposed to have disappeared?
Pat - your insight is quite amazing as it simply highlights the inconsistencies in various parts of the stories that have been doing the rounds since Madeleine disappeared.
We went to PDL a few years before madeleine disappeared and found local people to be family oriented and friendly so much so that having children in buggies wasn't a problem at all. I know it's been asked before but why did the McCanns not think to take their children with them in the evenings. The pushchair excuse seems to be just that. An excuse.
Pat - I admire your tenacity and determination to put your views across.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

Thanks Pat. I guess I was just thinking that just like the police sometimes make up evidence on a suspect, preciseley BECAUSE they know he's guilty, that the Smiths did the same here, in order to help their friend Murat.

Of course that then requires an added element of conspiracy and I can see why you might be reluctant to go down that path. But I guess that's what Tony Bennett has been suggesting.

Anonymous said...

(first ever comment here)

Keep up the good work, please, Pat.

As a Portuguese, I'm ashamed that my own country doesn't throw the book at K&G for child neglect.

Above all, I feel for the poor twins, being raised by a pair of socio-psycho-whatever-paths. Has anyone looked at this psychological angle to characterize the parents? If it could be established that they fit one of this disorders - of which one of the distiguished traits is _lying_ - that could be the basis for a substantiated prosecution.

best regards.

Pat Brown said...

Atlal Roma, Kate told the police she had a dream that Maddie was buried up on the Rocha Negra...and Gerry rushed back to Portugal. Then he got the hire car. What I believe happenened is that Maddie was hidden up in one of the crevices on the side of Rocha Negra, accessible from the beach. I think there was never an intention of moving her body. I think, in a panic, Gerry found that spot and it worked pretty well. It hadn't been found bu if it were found at some point, they could still claim the abductor put her there (or at least hope that would fly. But, with Kate telling the police the general location, if they then found it, suspicion would obviously fall right back on them. Hence, a desperate move (literally) to a location where she would never be found, a placee like Monte do Jose Mestre, a desolate area just west of Praia da Luz near where Gerry's phone pinged after her rented the hire car.

I cannot be sure either location is the actual location of the first burial spot and the second burial spot, but these are two areas that made sense after I went to Praia da Luz searching for where Maddie might be. There are two blogs on here: Moving and Hiding Bodies and, Find the Body and Prove We Killer Her. Deeper explanations there.

Pat Brown said...

Thomas, indeed the Smiths could have done that but that still does not answer why the McCanns dissed the sighting. If they had info that this was so, then they could have come forward with that information. If they didn't, then it was a lead they should have been all over.

As to the Smiths, it is one thing to say they saw a guy to protect Murat (really? All of them?) How many people do that to help a friend (still doesn't really eliminate him and it is risky possibly screwing someone else over). Then, why did Mr. Smith later say he thought it was Gerry? That was quite unnecessary.

So, all in all, I think the fact the McCanns muted the Smith sighting is hugely important and telling.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 2:33

I think it is quite normal for police not to arrest folks like the McCanns at a time when it was thought their daughter had been kidnapped. Crappy that they were as parents for leaving small children alone, if the abduction bit were true, the neglect would not have done in Maddie that night had she not been "abducted." So, in a sense, they would be charged for carelessness that had not actually resulted in a child's injury (unlike leaving your little child alone in the apartment with a bathtub full of water and going out drinking at the corner bar; child drowns). Although in truth, the neglect is quite the same, sympathies tend to run differently in varying situations which is why the focus tends to go to what is at that moment considered the most important issue.

As to their psychology, I think Kate displays a narcissistic personality disorder while Gerry tends toward psychopathic. But neither disorder is a crime, so it has no real bearing on the situation except in the analysis of it.

Pat Brown said...


First of all, thanks for your kind words.

Okay, why didn't the McCanns take the kids with them? I guess because they figured they didn't have to and it was more fun to put them down to sleep and go off for a full adult evening.

As to so many blokes walking about town with little girls in their arms, I guess it is more likely in the resort because of the creche, so, yes, possible that there could have been a few doing so in the evening.

However, there were only so many children in the evening creche, only so many girls, only so many little girls, only so many little girls in similar clothing to Maddie's, only so many of those girls being toted by their fathers as opposed to their mothers, and only so many of those girls being carried about at that time and in the right places and going the right direction....::laughs:: so, yeah, not likely we have a bunch of identical sightings in such a short time frame.

As to my simple way of breaking stuff down, I like things that make simple sense. Life is not a Hollywood drama for the most part (until you get up into the machinations of organized crime and politics - which are sometimes the same thing). Regular people act in regular ways and this is what we need to realize when we analyze crime; people do what they think is a logical thing to do at the time. One simple example is why I believe Maddie did indeed die and was removed the evening of May 3. If she dies the day before, we would not see the mess of May 3. We would have seen the same kind of thing if it had happened while they were at dinner on May 2 or if it happened during the day, we would have seen some simpler daytime disappearance (Kate turns her back, child gone - this is a common scenario used by parents who kill their children) or they would have waited until night, pretended they all went to sleep and someone came through the window and took Maddie. They would have had all day and evening to fix things perfectly. and also not need to go pretend to be happy at dinner and try to establish one of the worst alibis ever (Jane's bad story and Jez and Gerry not seeing her on the street? Really?) Instead, we have a complete mashup on May 3. Mashups happen because the unexpected has just occurred and you do the desperation dance, damage control, and you usually screw up portions of it which clearly is true here.

Anonymous said...

The evidence given to police about the angles of the bedroom door is the problem with abandoning JT's man and with considering 10pm man, Pat.

Their story still has to be that someone was in the apartment around 9.15 because the door position moved (or so they say).

Pat Brown said...

Anon 5:14

Yes, that door in different positions is a big issue. On the McCann website they do claim that they are not in agreement with Redwood's saying who Jane saw was not the abductor and Smithman is, because either the McCanns are hallucinating or lying about the door or the abductor was indeed Tannerman. So, on the wbdite they say they think Jane may still have seen the abductor and, most interestingly, they are STILL ignoring Smithman EVEN after Scotland Yard is pointing toward him as the abductor.

Strange stuff which can mean a number of different things.

1. The McCanns are innocent, Jane really did see the abductor and Andy Redwood is out to lunch.

2. The McCanns are innocent and Smithman is really the abductor. The McCanns are confused about the door.

3. The McCanns are innocent and neither Tannerman nor Smithman are abductors; that there is another person who grabbed Maddie but wasn't seen. The McCanns are just confused about the door.

4. The McCanns are guilty and made up Tannerman, the door, and are hiding Smithman. Scotland Yard is helping them out and in an attempt to make Jane not a liar created a dad with child and forgot about the door issue. They are using Smithman because they have a Gerry look-a-like.

5. This is the one I tend to lean toward right now. Scotland Yard was given a mission to find who abducted Maddie and the McCanns were declared innocent of any involvement and are off-limits. Andy Redwood is pursuing this case in this vein and looking for an explanation for the crime using a stranger abductor. He is making a puzzle and crushing pieces together, hoping it at least comes out to be a somewhat believable scenario. He may think the McCanns are likely to have involvement but just closing his eyes and doing his duty or he may believe they are not and doing his duty. Not all detectives are good all the time or honest all the time. I don't know much about Redwood, but the behaviors of Scotland Yard and Redwood lead me to believe Number 5 is most likely the right combo.

Anonymous said...

And the reason why Gerry was never going to cooperate with any reconstruction in PDL?
The PJ may just ask him to walk along a certain road, at a certain time, with a certain number of individuals watching his every movement/ posture.
It would have been slam dunk.

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 6:20

All you would have to reconstruct is Jez and Gerry chatting on that narrow street, have Jane dance around them while a fellow crosses the street in front of all them, and ask Jez and Gerry to show them some way that they missed seeing both Jane and the abductor.

It is laughable. Been there and know it didn't happen.

Anonymous said...

What truly puzzles me is why, in seven years there has been no concern expressed about the well being of the surviving children. Even if the McCanns were not culpable , their behaviour is, and always has been, - I will express this kindly - strange. With your assessment of the parents' psychology, Pat, and the current media overload, how can these twins develop normally as they get older? What can the future hold for them??

Pat Brown said...

Anonymous 6:31

If you look at the cases social services have to deal with, the twins are way down on the concern scale.

In all of history, children have been born to questionable parents in defective human societies; we have a much bigger problem in general. Children are beaten, raped, murdered, tortured...sad that the most innocent and vulnerable of society quite frankly get the worst of it...and often grown up to be less than stellar humans themselves.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 10:43

Your brother-in-law has seen a lot in his life in law enforcement I am sure and I am not surprised he sees what I see (not that either one of us is absolutely correct).
But, what I have been trying to tell people about this "review" not being proper is from years of seeing the inside of case handling and knowing things that most people haven't a clue about if they have never worked as a detective in a police department.

Steve McHale - Liverpool said...

Hi Pat,

Have read quite a few of your posts regarding this and can only give praise in what can only be described as common sense, logical and insight thoughts on the whole sorry saga.

I think you have most things absolutely nail on the head, anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that the official story of what happened is a load of old tosh!

As you point out, so many of us, especially myself seen through the lies with in the first few days, we knew something was not right, suspicious and strange about their version, their behaviour and the issue as a whole.

KM is from my home town and we have a saying for things that stand out like a sore thumb and that is "You can't kid a kidder!" ...

This basically means that you may fool others, but the people who can see through your lies, your body language and your discomfort at certain questions, are the people that grew up in the same city, town or street. We know it's bull and we can smell it no matter what country you are in when you say it!

Keep up the fantastic work and I only wish I had seen you much earlier, like back in 2007 on 3rd day "missing" when I knew deep in my heart, in my minds eye and my gut that they lied, that they were at the very least culpable.

GordonSta said...

Thanks for your clearly expressed, irrefutable logic on this. I agree with your viewpoint exactly. Let's hope this whole ghastly business is resolved soon.

Anonymous said...

@PAT, one couldnt make it up, ask gerry a question and kate pipes up?
Their stories are not air tight, dont forget they have had a number of years to pratice their rehersals, i wonder what books gerry has been reading of late!

Atlal Roma said...

Thanks pat for explaining! Now i get it. Ill also read your other blogs. Avout the issue. How can they not be so distraught and guilt ridden?! To hide their daughters body then go few weeks after to remove it. So cold in feeling! So disturbing and its gone on for 7 years now!!!!

Pat Brown said...

Atlal, the higher the level of narcissism, the less empathy for others. If you reach a psychopathic level, then others are just objects. Maybe you really like your object and are upset when something happens to it but that is not the same thing as feeling empathy for the object. Hence, a psychopathic parent may really enjoy the child (that amuses him, sucks up to him, etc) but if that child ticks him off, he might be able to kill it will no remorse. Or if it has an accident he is responsible for,feel bad about the loss, but very easily justify that it wasn't really his fault and stuff just happens. Time to move on.

I do feel that we have seen that the McCanns were upset at the loss of Maddie, but I also see a high level of self-centeredness in any discussion of her. It is about THEIR feelings, not Maddie's. So, in that case, whatever happened to Maddie is over in a short time - short grief - and then it is about us. And if us can enjoy the limelight, going on TV, making a bundle of money, feeling important, getting attention, etc., well, then, things are going all right.

Pat Brown said...

That was supposed to be ...And if "us" can enjoy the limelight.... ::smile::...purposeful misuse of grammar...

AnneGuedes said...

Have you read Das Versprechen of Friedrich Dürrenmatt that inspired The Pledge ? The AG refers to it in his report and I think he thought of Gonçalo Amaral.

Pat Brown said...

Anne, I just found it in Amazon in English! I think I will have to get it. Fascinating that the AG refers to it and I am sure he did indeed think of Goncalo. I remember thinking so clearly after I saw The Pledge that my own efforts to bring justice in the crime that first got me into profiling might well turn out that way and there is no way to prove you were right, to vindicate yourself when those in power are willing to let someone be a fall guy for their political purposes. Now, in The Pledge, at least in the movie, the detective gets screwed by the fickle finger of fate and then no one believes him. That is bad enough but when those in power lie and distort or manufacture evidence, the damage can be even worse because not only can't you prove it, but people believe the lies because they are coming from on high.

What is even worse to me is that false closing of cases distorts the truth about how a crime was committed and who committed it. How can we improve our abilities to crime solve when we are believing a lie? The last case in my book has clear evidence pointing to the estranged husband of the woman who was murdered, but after my book hit the stands, this twenty year old case suddenly had DNA supposedly reexamined and though the questionable results were never publicly shown, the prosecutor claimed they implicated the original subject and his office had been vindicated (from me). Of course, that poor man, now has been labelled a killer by the prosecutor's office, even though he won't be tried because of double jeopardy (the first time the judge threw out the case because it was idiotic and had zero evidence to support taking the man to trial). His reputation is ruined. I feel rather sick about this because I worked with the sheriff on the case and the evidence was extremely heavy in the direction of the ex and I was hoping to eventually see justice in the matter. Instead, my analysis was seen as a stain on the prosecutor's office and this lead to this poor man being rubbished (along with me and a proper understanding of the case). And I can do nothing about it.

So, I have been the fall guy myself here and in other cases in which my analysis of the cold case caused the police department to dis me in order to cover up their earlier ineptitude. Hence, I no longer work cold cases but work to train detectives so things don't go wrong to begin with; then no need for a cover-up.

I just hope Goncalo doesn't end up the complete fall guy in the McCann case (he already has suffered enough).

AnneGuedes said...

Murat never was a friend nor an acquaintance of the Smiths (Peter Smith, same generation, had never been in PDL before). Martin Smith had seen Murat in a bar and knew his name, perhaps because Murat is fluent in both languages, which turns him noticeable and eventually helpful.

Pat Brown said...

Thank you very much, Steve and Jordan. It is my hope that Deductive Profiling (a scientific method of crime analysis which makes determinations based on physical and behavioral evidence) will be used in fresh cases rather than cold cases so that detectives can move the cases in the right direction and not have them get shelved due to failing to follow leads properly. I want detectives trained in this methodology and also to have deductive profilers hired into police departments to work alongside detectives on fresh cases.

AnneGuedes said...

I do agree totally with this :
Scotland Yard was given a mission to find who abducted Maddie and the McCanns were declared innocent of any involvement and are off-limits. Andy Redwood is pursuing this case in this vein and looking for an explanation for the crime using a stranger abductor. He is making a puzzle and crushing pieces together, hoping it at least comes out to be a somewhat believable scenario. He may think the McCanns are likely to have involvement but just closing his eyes and doing his duty or he may believe they are not and doing his duty.
Right from the start the task was to find an alive little girl, this being only possible if she had been abducted.

Anonymous said...

This case has always been about a whitewash.
for those who like a Freudian slip...listen to this one from the horses mouth (Theresa May).

around 23 seconds in lol.. even lies about the extent of police co-operation.

there's a lot more to this case than meets the eye.....its all in the "denied" phone records and don't think the Governments of both countries are not aware of their content.


Anonymous said...

can I just add some more thought to the mix.

its apparent at some stage the McCann's and tapas allowed the suspicion to be pointed at Robert Murat..I have no doubt he was going to become there Patsy when the original plan became a disaster.

there Problem was that I believe the Murat family are successful connected people also - and that's were the problems began.

It could mean the sighting of the smith family is a red herring.. to erase another red herring of Murat been lined up as the abductor...lies within a lies.

I believe the phone records would/will show that Madeleine sustained a severe injury PRIOR to the 3rd and that People back in the UK as well as at resort know/knew...and co-ordinated actions....that snowballed and snowballed.
that's why it looks unplanned and panic stations.


Anonymous said...

everybody seems to have forgotten about the Portugal taxi driver, blue jeep etc

I believe madeleine sustained a severe injury (life threatening) and it was known about in the uk by some close to them...all prior to the 3rd....I believe it turns even more sinister when the extent of the injury is assessed and a plan is set in motion to cover up responsibility...I believe Madeleine was taken back to the apartment for the plan to proceed and something happened during its execution which resulted in a panic and deviation from initial plan.


Anonymous said...

Hi Pat, thank you for this you are brilliant. Please keep doing this. I am English and from Leicestershire and no one I know goes on holiday and leaves the kids in apartment unattended while the parents go out to dinner how awful. I think you are correct Pat Maddie is dead and this is a massive cover up. Although we all wish that when an awful crime is committed the Criminal or criminals are brought to justice this just unfortunately does not always happen. But in this case we have a message to parents all around the world not to neglect their children. There is the message that people in authority are not always good and to be trusted, corruption happens in all levels of society. We have the lesson to trust our instincts and maybe perseverance . If we focus on Maddie and what she deserves- that's a decent burial close to home not shoved in a well, a drain or a grain store. If you want to do something for Maddie pray for healing in her family and the tapas friends this will lead to an interesting confession and a conclusion. On another point there is an astrology blog called darkstar which many years ago analysesd the McCann family members and came the analysis of the personalities and relationships is similar to your observations Pat. Thanks

Anonymous said...

What happened to the clothes Gerry wore on May 3rd ( and May 2nd as I believe that's when the parents discovered Maddies dead body after another session at the Tapas Bar). How did he dispose of them to avoid detection by the dogs, I've often wondered.

Anonymous said...

Pat, your blog is great. I really hope you are wrong about a whitewash and I am still undecided as the case develops as to whether ST are up to their old tricks yet again or whether they are actually trying to find the perpetrators. However, when losing hope I remind myself of the immense power that News UK/News International wields. If there's one person the McCann's shouldn't have hacked off its Rebecca Brooks and her crew. And that's exactly what Gerry did when he stood at the leveson enquiry and essentially demanded censorship of the British press. Didn't Rebecca Brooks pressurise David Cameron to reopen the investigation? Now if I was a News International journalist in 2007 I would be hacking the McCann's and their friends phones faster than you can say 'whoosh'. How do we know they didn't? How do we know they aren't biding their time until they need to use this information to show that actually, they didn't do such a bad job when it came to investigative journalism. Hope so.

trustmeigetit said...

Also I read that Gerry claedto have stood there speaking to Jez for about 15 minutes while Jez said it was just a couple minutes. If this is true, that gave Gerry about a 10 minute window. There are many places he could have hidden Madeleine in 10 minutes and ran back to the table to wait for Kate to "break the news".

I like many think Jez being there was not part of the plan but ended up being used as an alibi of some sorts.

trustmeigetit said...

Also for anyone that doesn't think those e-fits look like Gerry....remember these drawings are not photographs but someone trying to recall features on a person.

There were drawings of Ariel Castro around town after Gina went missing. I think it was her. Someone saw on of the girls get in a car and described the man.
Anyways, you can see the drawing of him online and compare to his actual
Photos. If you take away the goatee, to me it's not that similar.

With these e-fits of Gerry, it important to look at his face for dominate features. His nose to me is one if those. And that's one of the features the e-fit catches.

trustmeigetit said...

I also meant to note above in the drawing that was around town of Ariel Castro as a suspect in the missing girl...that his own daughter didn't recognize him and it was him. So the drawings are by no means a photographic likeness. But rather highlights some of the features.

trustmeigetit said...

I agree that them
Dismissing this sighting screams that it was them.

A normal parent who thought someone maybe saw who took their daughter would hound that person. Beg and plead for any more details they could get. But the fact they didn't even show interest proved to me at least that it was because it was Gerry.

The Smiths also said that they said hi and that Gerry didn't say a word. I think it was because he didn't want anything more to identify him.

I believe that man was Gerry carrying Madeleine to a temporary hiding place.

trustmeigetit said...

I also think all the parents that night drugged their kids. And that fact is what binds them together in this lie.

They are all just as guilty.

Only one died but it could have been any of the kids.

But if they come out and state what happened they are implicating themselves as well.

So that's why I think the Tapas 7 will always stay quiet.

They all have careers and kids. And drugging their kids would surely wreck
Havoc on that life.

Anonymous said...

Greetings Pat!

It seems Scotland Yard are now poised to search two new sites in the outskirts of Luz. At first, I thought one of this could be the Monte Jose Mestre you referred to in your report from the site but then I realized Scotland Yard would never do anything that might compromise the parents, would they?

AnneGuedes said...

There's one point that must be faced: Madeleine didn't die when and due to the fact that she was left alone. Whatever happened to her, it was before the McCanns left the flat to go to the Tapas restaurant in their first denial action.
Theoretically a cadaver dog picks up the scent if the VOCs have been able to develop for 90' after death, i.e if the body has remained one hour and a half at least after death in a room before being removed. It is a minimum, in excellent conditions and preservation, depending also on the length of the period between the removal and the dog's visit.

Anonymous said...

Irrespective of this search, it strikes me that Redwood and his media lackeys know perfectly well where Madeleine is. They've spent the past few years pissing all over her.
'That nice Mr Redwood'

Anonymous said...

Anne, I have always subscribed to the theory of accidental death. But the more obvious this farce becomes I think it is not so much "what happened to her" but rather "what was done to her".

As SY are finding out, we now have to presume that these robber/drug addicts went equipped with pick axes and shovels. And yet it rolls on...all lapped up by the unquestioning media.

Anonymous said...

Pat agree Smithman exists.
Agree too McC's should have been all over the Smithman sighting - they weren't.

Every time they spoke about Tanner sighting in interview which they did many time, they could have given equal time to Smith sighting. What harm would it have done? Or is that the problem - giving it too much attention would have harmed them brought trouble to their door?

Crecheman? He doesn't exist IMO. Don't think there would be bunch parents/fathers carrying their kids around in pj's either, on a cold night this was not high season.

...Added to which, a friend of mine did a little digging regarding the subject of creche man.

The following is what she came up with, this is exactly what was said.

'Just out of interest I looked at Tapas booking sheet and none of the diners on it had a child in the night crèche on the 3rd.

Some had no children at all, the rest took their young male children or male babies to have dinner with them as per statements.

Cox party had a 17 month infant but they cancelled and took a takeaway instead.

At 7p.m. Carpenter are booked as 2 adults but according to their statement they took their 3 year old girl and a 4 month old baby with them to Tapas and all left together.

Mrs. Carpenter is the person who thought she heard someone calling out MADELEINE at a time before the alarm was raised when they crossed the road that Tanner flip flopped up to the other side of the complex where their accommodation was.

The McCann party were the only diners at the Tapas bar that evening who had children and didn't take them with them.

Between little boys, baby boys, and Carpenters little girl there were 10 children in the Tapas bar with their parent/s booked at 7p.m-7-30 p.m.

I looked up other guests staying at the ‘resort’ on the 3rd with little girls whose accommodation was on the other side of the road to the main complex.

Parents who would have had to cross the top of the road.

Foster. Girl aged 3 no statement that I can find, left on the 5th, declined the offered child care on booking form but booked mini-club.

Naylor. Girl 3 and baby of 11 months, no statement that I can find, left on the 5th.

Mills. Girl 3. Found their booking but I can't find them on the list of arrivals at resort.

That's it for little girls who were likely to be in the night crèche on the 3rd and were staying on the other side of the complex.

There were lots of other children in the resort who could have been in the night crèche on the 3rd but they were ON McCann's side of the road.

Irwin were two women, no children and Sperrys were an adult couple with no children either.


(See 'Hope and Tanner Talk Blog' above)

If crecheman does exist:

He did not eat at the Tapas Restaurant that night.
He did not reside at the side of the road to which he was seen heading
He supposedly had picked his child up from the creche at this time, so was heading back to his holiday accommodation - if so - this guy had LOST HIS BEARINGS - as he was headed in the wrong direction!


Anonymous said...

^^^^ yep, crècheman does not exist, I'd put my mortgage on it. Someone is on thin ice.

Redwood is being 'retired' out of harms way and Rowley looks to be tasked with closing down operation Grange sometime this year.
New faces, clean sweeps, 'reappraisals' and the media line of "we did everything possible" (for Saints Kate and Gerry).

The only shred of hope comes from the Portuguese refusal to make this a Joint Investigation.

privatetruthseeker said...

Please keep up the fight for justice. The truth has to come out!!!
7 years ago a little girl died, and her parents covered up the facts in order to protect themselves. I am going to continue to support pat and the poor original investigator who despite losing everything continues to fight for maddie s justice.
Maybe another petition is needed.....

Harry said...

Is Gerry McCann's brother significant to this case in any way? I read somewhere that he left the group and flew home on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.

Anonymous said...

How do you account for the fact that lots of independent witnesses, who were not friends of the McCanns, state that they saw Gerry at The Ocean Club at the same time that the Smith's saw "Smithman"? Also, if the McCanns were narcissistic psychopaths of the level you're suggesting, there would be other crimes that they would have committed in the past, and people would have come out of the woodwork to tell of their previous 'deeds'. People don't suddenly become psychopaths in their late 30's after living pretty normal lives up until that point. What if you are wrong Pat? What if the McCanns are innocent? I live in Australia, and I remember the Lindy Chamberlain case so well. "If" you are wrong, and The McCanns innocence is vindicated at any time during your lifetime, will you apologise to them? There really is no evidence that is reliable and consistent enough to state that the McCanns are guilty. If they were driving Madeleine's dead body around 27 days after her death, the smell would be unbearable, and there's no way the twins, or any adult could put up with such a seriously powerful stench. It's just implausible. It's also implausible that all of the McCanns friends would have lied for this long. Yes, I know the 'theory' that they all have a lot to lose for having left their own children, but I just don't buy it. One of them would have cracked by now. I think that the guilt you see in the McCanns faces is very real, but it's the guilt about leaving her alone that night. I agree with you that they have (in various interviews) attempted to minimise their part in her disappearance in terms of having left her alone. Especially in the earlier interviews, there was a huge amount of denial going on by the McCanns. But it was denial and guilt about their 'childcare' arrangements, and not the guilt of having had anything more to do with Madeleine's disappearance. I think that many Americans don't understand how decidedly unglamorous the profession of medicine is in the UK, especially in the public system. Neither of the McCanns has ever gone into private practice. They would be used to working extremely long hours, in over crowded hospitals, in an underfunded public health system that is a serious GRIND. It's not the kind of job that a narcissist would be drawn to at all, especially given that narcissists generally find it difficult to stick at anything for a long period of time. I know that MDs do go off the rails, but it's usually via the use of drugs due to stress, and not out of having a criminal nature. The McCanns don't strike me as people who ever wanted to be 'famous'. I mean, seriously - Can you imagine either of them on some reality TV show? I can't. I think that evidence proves that every one of their interviews is about finding Madeleine, or finding out what happened to her. They are too intelligent to commit a serious crime, and then invite Scotland Yard to re-investigate it! The conspiracy theories about Scotland Yard protecting the McCanns are ludicrous. The McCanns are from working class families. Neither of them went to an establishment British school, and they are not 'well-connected' to the establishment at all, nor are they seriously wealthy. Yes, they are more comfortably off than most, but not at any remotely 'high' level. A number of exceptionally wealthy people came to their aid in this case, but that was when they heard about the case in the media. It wasn't through their own 'connections"
The biggest problem with your "Smithman" theory is that other guests, employees of the Ocean Club, and even members of the local police force stated that they saw Gerry at the Ocean Club at the same time that the Smiths saw this 'man'. Whatever you think Gerry McCann is capable of, he is clearly not capable of being in two places at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

I have always thought that Kate's choice of words ("They've taken Madeleine") seemed odd. Also this odd expression is repeated by Kate and now other throughout interviews etc, often with a strange emphasis… e.g.. in the interview where Kate is demonstrating the door "whooshing" shut (sorry don't have the link) she says "And that's when I knew - PAUSE - she'd been TAKEN." There is evidence elsewhere to suggest that the Mccanns do make a point of hiding odd or contentious things in plain sight to make them seem normal or innocent, so this could be interesting to consider. My point is this:

Do you think it's possible that Madeleine died earlier and the removal of her body was planned, along with the assembling of the publicity photos (allegedly printed out at midnight on a nanny's own printer now unavailable to police) The plan went wrong when Kate returned to do her "check" and found that Madeleine had indeed been "taken" as arranged, perhaps earlier than expected - or perhaps it was just a shock to know the body was finally gone and she had seen her daughter for the last time. It would make sense if she had an emotional reaction to this and went "off plan" running down to the Tapas to report "THEY'VE taken Madeleine" and as a result the "big revelation" had to happen then rather than say the next morning.

Not sure if this is in the right section for you to see it?!

Pat Brown said...

Anon 558;

No, all the evidence points to an accidental death on the evening of May 3. Please read my later posts on conspiracy theories and developing theories from evidence.