Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Will DNA "Solve" the Madeleine McCann Case?

DNA technology is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it is the defining piece of evidence that puts the killer away. Sometimes it is the only way a homicide case that has been cold for years can finally identify who committed the crime. But, sometimes DNA is used to close cases the police want put to rest and the use of it is not exactly kosher.

We have just heard that Scotland Yard requested Portugal gather DNA from four suspects last year. The question in folks mind is, what will they link this DNA to? Was there some DNA in this case we are unaware of or are they going to retest some evidence and find this DNA? Or is something very concerning going on with Scotland Yard's request? Let me give you two examples to ponder.

There is a very high profile case in the US that included ten murders, four of them of a family that began the supposed series. The case, the BTK (bind, torture, kill) homicides, though heavily investigated by local police and the FBI came up with blank for thirty years. Then, through a weird twist, a man by the name of Dennis Rader, a local married man who did code enforcement, made a dumb mistake and got the police interested in him. Very long story short, he was arrested and charged with all the murders in this series, and he confessed in court to each and every one of them with a description of how he did them; there was no actual trial. One of the most unusual wrap-ups I have ever seen. He got life in prison and some deal for his wife. There was a huge press conference with local law enforcement and the FBI and lot of congratulations passed around. Everyone went home happy; the police agencies, the media because they got a great story, the public because the police finally caught the guy, and the families who now had answers.

Except there is a big problem with this ending to the BTK crimes; the police never had to show the evidence they claimed they found at this man's house and they never showed the DNA reports that supposedly linked this man to the deaths of the family of four and one other woman who was killed a number of years later. Because this man confessed in court and was truly very creepy, no one seems to be questioning his links to all the crimes.

Let me say this; the guy is a serial killer, no doubt. I believe he killed one of the female victims (I believe a later copycat killing) and I believe he murdered a woman not specifically included in the series who was murdered after 1990, when the death penalty was reinstated in Kansas. I believe the prosecutors made a deal; confess to the other crimes and we won't charge you with the one which will get you executed. In other words, Rader could become an infamous serial killer and duck the death penalty at the same time; I would take the deal if I were him.

But, I think the court confession was a charade. Dennis Rader didn't say anything in the courtroom that we already didn't know or the police already didn't know. But it is the DNA claim that was really fraudulent. First of all, I know firsthand from the detectives on the family homicides that the DNA was too degraded to be of use. Which is why my suspect in those crimes (who was a suspect in an unrelated murder and was one of the main suspects in the BTK killings at the time) could never be charged. Rader's DNA was also supposedly linked to a crime in which the woman's husband had been a suspect right up until Rader was arrested. Now, how could that be if there was DNA available in that crime all along? But, I guess the media doesn't want to ask those questions because the storybook ending was very satisfying.

There is another case in which a convicted (for life) rapist just got charged and convicted of a twenty-year-old crime. He was convicted solely on DNA; no witnesses, no other physical evidence, no confession. In fact, the man took an Alford plea in court (which means he admits the state may be able to convict him but he doesn't plead guilty to the crime) and he stood up in court and told the judge, "did not kill that girl." Now, I know a psychopathic rapist is hard to believe; after all, he didn't even allow his defense to fight the case. He took the Alford plea on Day Two, stunning his lawyers who have told me he did so because he couldn't get the drugs he wanted in the jail he was transferred to and he didn't want to lose his prison cell back at the penitentiary if he was gone too long. He already had life and this conviction wasn't going to affect him in any way. They told me the DNA report was questionable.

I bet it was. The detective on that case AND the state's attorney had both told me years back that "there were no sperm fractions found" which meant there was no DNA with which to match to anyone; hence, no arrest could be made and certainly no conviction. Yet, oddly enough, years later, the case was suddenly closed with magic DNA and a suspect nobody cared about.

People hear DNA and they automatically think that this means solid proof. They don't understand that DNA testing has its failures, it incorrect analyses, and, sometimes, the claim DNA linked a suspect to a crime can be completely fabricated. It is hard for people to believe this goes on, but it does and the issue has been rarely addressed (although one book, Tainting Evidence, broke the silence on this).

So, if DNA suddenly pops up to link to any of these recently questioned suspects, I think the majority of people will accept a Scotland Yard claim to its existence and validity. One way they can do this is to claim that a partial profile matches one of the suspects, enough for Scotland Yard to be convinced the suspect was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but, unfortunately, not to the extremely high legal standard required to prosecute. If they claim there is a partial match and then add in some behavioral stuff, like phone calls made that night, the case can be "solved" and shelved  of the and most public will accept the conclusion without giving too much thought to the possibility that no DNA actually really linked any of these men to the death and disappearance of Madeleine.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 2, 2014

 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' 

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.


Anonymous said...

Could be Pat. Nobody who knows the case they constructed to convict Barry George will be surprised by anything.

CPS at the Barry George trial was Alison Saunders, now DPP.

Anonymous said...

Exactly what we are seeing, and exactly what was planned from July 2013 (at the very least).

Anonymous said...

If you keep writing things like this Pat a Sizeable majority may belive it but a sizeable minority won't. Well done

Anonymous said...

There was mention of Dna evidence existing from the burglaries/serial intruder incidents the DCI believes may be linked (mentioned either in or around the 2nd Crimewatch appeal earlier this year).

That could be the reason?

Pat Brown said...

Anon 6:29

Unfortunately, Anon, reality is, the "sizable minority" I will get won't touch the "sizable majority" Anthony Summers will get when his book published by Hachette will hit the market.

It is the major media that convinces the majority; hence, this is why the McCanns need to control it and this is why an one wanting to impact some issue strives so hard for MSM attention. Summer's book, since he is a well known journalist and author will get excellent reviews (he is a good writer, no doubt) and be promoted widely throughout the world. This will be the icing on the cake for the McCanns after Scotland Yard finishes baking their final product.

Anonymous said...

He's old school, Pat.

I for one am intrigued to see his approach to the case.

He may well criticise the internet and 'armchair detectives'/defamers, but some aspects of what goes deserves criticism (I don't mean your writing!).

Pat Brown said...

Ah, here it on Malinka's couch that is "similar to Madeleine McCann"

Colin said...

Deep breaths, Pat. It's just tabloid time. They'll write any old nonsense (again!)

Anonymous said...

Pat....yep...that's the one.

Colin, Redwood IS the tabloids. He has no jurisdiction. This was, and always will be, the "Brooks Review"!

Pat Brown said...

Colin,I am not freaking out over tabloid stuff. The whole Scotland Yard investigation has been working toward explaining away any evidence pointing to the McCanns and coming up with a suitable explanation for the public (it will never go to court). I have just been watching this slow motion train wreck, trying to explain to folks that if this was a real investigation, none of what we see happening would have been happening.

Here is the basic plan: Scotland Yard comes up with acceptable suspects (these are usually creepy criminals people feel could have done something bad)and an acceptable crime (burglars make a mistake and kill Maddie). Killing Maddie in the apartment explains the cadaver dog hitting there and then she is carried away by a Gerry McCann look-a-like who is seen by the Smith family. Suddenly, a man comes forward and confesses he is likely the fellow Jane Tanner saw so this problem does not remain (both another possible abductor and that she could be a liar; McCanns exonerated again). New Smithman exonerates Gerry. Now, a little physical evidence (hair matching partially to Maddie's on Malinka's couch and maybe a cadaver hit in one of the suspect's cars)and some phone calls around the time of Maddie going missing. All this exonerates the McCanns by each piece of evidence and while any court case would be destroyed by a defense attorney, it is not likely this case will ever go to court, so all that is necessary, is an explanation that will eliminate the McCanns as perpetrators. While those who have read the files and know the case will not find this scenario, new "evidence" and suspects convincing, the vast majority of the public will buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Colin said...

I know Pat and I agree with you a lot about Op Grange (and with Anon @ 7.31 about police links to the media) but the public don't believe in anything much any more, and certainly not in institutions.

Most of the public of course aren't as interested in the case as we are. If there were ever a trial attention would undoubtedly be huge but at the moment it's sporadic.

People just assume the case will never be solved and I don't think an 'engineered' solution, accompanied by a PR splash, would do much to change the general apathy/unease about the case.

Only a trial would.

Pat Brown said...

Colin, I respectfully disagree. First of all, considering how bent out of shape many of those who believe the McCanns are guilty have been over my recent posts about the Scotland Yard review being a farce, how many of them STILL believe SY is going to arrest the McCanns, and are infuriated that I have the audacity to question the integrity of such a great law enforcement agency...yeah, I think the general public will be pretty satisfied with the story Scotland Yard gives them.

Secondly, it isn't about the public; it is about perception, and while I am not sure of all the reasons this perception of the McCanns's innocence is necessary (and that the PJ and Amaral and Portugal are less than admirable) is necessary and what the actual importance it has. Sometimes it is some large political thing, other times it is about making careers or breaking them, sometimes it is to embarrass the other side, sometimes it is about raising stats. I don't know in this case, but the ending is important to someone or some group. Maybe one day we will find out what is actually behind the incredible McCann support.

Colin said...

Many of them do still believe in Op Grange Pat because as you know in a case like this people are passionate, and Scotland Yard are their last hope. They don't like to hear that hope may be as misplaced now as it was in 2008.

But most of those people don't really believe in the Metropolitan Police as an institution, it's just that we don't have autonomous prosecutors in the UK, and if our police investigation ends... that's it. There is nobobdy else. So they have to have faith in the police.

I can speculate that perception of innocence is of greater importance to one half of the McCanns than to the other (and it's motivated by what history will say about the case to their other children).

Anonymous said...


The Media are creating the impression that the majority of the UK public are behind the Mccanns.

Its a lie, like the rest of the theatre.

The Majority of the UK public KNOW they are been protected, but such is the state of affairs ..they can do nothing.
So like most folk ...if it doesn't impact on your own, you shake your head and carry on with day to day life.

and the corruption wins.


Anonymous said...

I think your last point about what history might say to their remaining children is absolutely right, and it could have great bearing upon the existence of many websites.
Post-Redwood, I think it likely we will see some very aggressive tactics.

SergeantDoodles said...

Try to have a little faith people. I believe SY will try to do the right thing and still have trust that the whole state is not rotten:

Latest BBC update:

Colin said...

Maybe not rotten but prudent.

There's just no appetite to go there?

I'm sure the Metropolitan police would much rather not be involved at all.

SergeantDoodles said...

No reason to make their business obvious especially given the Mccanns army of lawyers and PR team. We are just shooting in the dark here really and going on previous police tactics they always say the parents aren't suspects whether they are innocent or not. You would do the same thing when making a bluff in poker. I would say SY detectives live for this type of investigation. Ultimately imo we are all speculating though and I personally would not be so quick to jump to conclusions. Also although I believe the Mccanns to know more then they are admitting I would never discount the fact that they could be innocent just yet and that in itself means we should show some restraint don't you think?

Anonymous said...

'Faith' and 'trust' are never appropriate when it comes to the state. This is not because we must assume that the entire edifice is corrupt, but because the state itself is an assemblage of parts, and not something that can be so lazily personified. I have faith in my family members, but to have faith in the state is the seedbed of it's decline.

Institutions of state are meticulously composed and fought for across many generations, none of whom could take anything for granted; hence the miriad of checks and balances that are negotiated to ensure our safety.

The reason people are so exercised over this case is because very often in the recent past we have seen SY abuse those checks. That we should now 'trust' them is an abdication of democratic responsibility. We should question them to every possible limit. We owe that to all those people before us who worked so tirelessly to make our institutions accountable servants of the most vulnerable in our society.

Dispute the interpretation by all means, but don't make this a question of faith.

Colin said...

Definitely agree with your last sentence, Doodles. In regards to the disappearance anyway.

Nobody was innocent in what happened afterwards.

Thomas Baden-Riess said...

I don't for a minute think this is anything but a whitewash, but the arrest of Malinka is at least interesting, in that I think that he is either involved or knows something.

trustmeigetit said...

So basically less evidence can exonerate the Mccanns while solid evidence proved nothing

Sounds about right. People don't pay attention and accept the BS that's shelled out.

trustmeigetit said...

There is also a woman who's child was kidnapped while on vacation in Greece that was asking why she wasn't getting the same help the Mccanns were. I don't recall the details. Only skimmed the article a Friday but she got some response like it's just different circumstances. Yes it is.

But for those that think the efforts for the Mccans is to find Madeline needs to then ask why only this family.

trustmeigetit said...

The missing child is Ben Needham.

Here is the article I saw.

trustmeigetit said...

Why if they are ignoring all of the actual evidence. And only searched the land while the Mccanns are suing.

Also see this article.

Anonymous said...

Amazingly some folk will still regard this as a fantastic success for SY. Four more eliminated, no one arrested, quick conclusion (of course no one was ever going to be arrested - Redwood can't make arrests in Portugal); still, perhaps we should all celebrate Redwood's latest heroic feat.

Meanwhile, back with humanity. Malinka's name has been lapped up by every major news network across the UK (if not Europe). A man with serious mental health problems has been named in the media after being subjected to a day's questioning; the basis for which appears to be (no more no less)...err he made some phone calls and err...has serious mental health problems.

Imagine if these were Portuguese Police on UK soil. Imagine if someone in your own family, with mental health issues, had been subjected to this. Whoop it up.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 3:57

I have removed your link to the Blacksmith blog post. Please do not post anything of his here again. I do not mind opposing positions but Blacksmith has recently taken to writing extremely derogatory statements about me and others who have worked hard to keep the truth about the McCann case available to the public.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's possible to underestimate just how desperate some people are for things to go well. That's mainly what it is.

(... I think)

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Anon @7.24,
I agree. It's just that some people are more insecure about their conclusions than others and feel they have to crush the people with whom they disagree. They crush the people, of course (not the arguments), straw people of their own imagining. It is pathetic, really.

Anonymous said...

In the past 12 months Redwood has made something like 25 trips to Portugal.

It is clearly possible for him to make these trips with discretion, away from media knowledge.
Is it altogether fanciful to suggest that these interrogations could have similarly taken place without the media's knowledge? That people could have been discretely invited to stations without the prior media advances?

Any meaningful outcomes could then have been presented to the media as seen fit.

'Close' DNA matches are not judicially meaningful, but of course they are now providing great currency for the media.

In my opinion this could all have been avoided. All of this turmoil and speculation surrounding these Portuguese citizens need never have happened.

Was Redwood naive?

Anonymous said...

Hairs "similar" to Madeleine's...well, the hairs found in the McCanns hired car back in 2007 were also "similar", DNA-15 out of 19 alleles(spelling?), but yet were not enough to charge the McCanns...
and just how and when were those hairs collected(Malinka's couch, I mean)? Now it seems it was a discarded couch, How did the SY know it was Malinka's couch? In the dump there are no name tags on discarded items...have they been watching Malinka in the last years and actually saw him dispose off the couch? Did they get a warrant from a portuguese judge to seize the couch? Or did they just jump over the portuguese law? They seem to be working outside the law, they even suggested the PJ to collect DNA and fingerprints from the suspects, at all costs, even by resorting to illegal means, in a sneaky way!!! Can you believe a "serious" police force suggesting this way of action to another police force?!
SY and the UK are "gone to the dogs"!

Anonymous said...

If they are building a case against these "burglars" then they'll need to eliminate everyone else first. That's the way it works isn't it? Are the T9 ruled out yet.


Pat Brown said...

Anon 8:00

Touché! Th concept that so many seem to be clinging to that to that Scotland Yard must eliminate everyone and their mother before investigating and arresting the McCanns is patently ludicrous. I believe this completely far-from-reality concept is being clung to because it is the only way to keep hope going that Scotland Yard is actually planning to take down the McCanns. Sadly, though, what people are seeing is what is really happening; Scotland Yard is focusing 100% on stranger abduction/homicide, every single investigative move has shouted this.

Anonymous said...

I will be honest ...I find it perversely enjoyable.. watching the corruption been played out FOR ALL TO SEE...its unadulterated in your face severe criminal behaviour.....wait for it ...wait for it ...yes by the GOVERNMENTS of PORTUGAL and the UK.

We are watching a serious crime unfold and nobody can do anything other that shout from the margins beggars belief.

I can see why so Americans are passionate about keeping their right to defend themselves from the Government as written in their constitution should be apparent to anyone now that their are forces controlling agendas.

I hope this case has enlightened many to the forces shaping the world.

they are not looking out for the masses only the few.


Colin said...

Easy Mojo, so far all that has happened is people have been interviewed.

The rest is newspaper hype (... so far)

Pat Brown said...

Ah, Mojo, we Americans may be passionate, but most of us haven't a clue to what is really going down in our clj trh tnat long back lost the concept of freedom; we are ruled by corperations and their government chums (our antitrust laws were gutted and few seem to realize that).

Our schools - government run - don't teach students what they need to know to understand pollitics and economy. They are taught to be "social" and see how wel that is working out. In fact, when I homeschooled my kids, the government agents would come out to my house each year to determine if I would be allowed to continue avoiding the public schools and all they ever care about was that my kids had proper socialization and played sports. My kids were part of the Boys and GIrls Club, so that nailed the sports and two of my kids are of mixed race and one is black, so that took care of the mixing properly with others issue (in fact, my children were "borrowed" when my white friends when the homeschool police came around), but they never cared that my chldren were actually being educated.

This is one of the problems with the case, Mojo. It is very difficult to understand the machinations behind the case (even by those of us who believe such machinations exist); while there is much on the surface, there is much hidden. And, for many, the many that perception is being created for, all that needs to be done is have those high up say it is so and people will believe them. When we see a large portion of those who think the McCanns are guilty having such strong belief that Scotland Yard is conducting a brilliant investigation to take them down, you see this in action. When this doesn't happen, I believe our group will say they are corrupt, but the majority of citizens out there will accept the Scotland Yard conclusions simply because the big organization says it is so. Books and blogs may well continue to question the conclusion of this case, but it will never be mainstream. Summers book is proof of that. Hachette is allowing him to "tell the story" and, you can bet, it isn't going to be the real one.

Pat Brown said...

Colin, you are one of those I am talking about (in a nice way). You want very badly to believe that Scotland Yard is on the up-and-up and is covertly working behind the scenes to take the McCanns down. Not ONE shred of EVIDENCE points to this. It isn't about what is in the media, but then, what Scotland Yard wants in the media is obvious. Crimewatch was orchestrated by Scotland Yard and that alone is proof that the McCanns are home free. No, Redwood did not eliminate Tannerman so we could all see how Gerry is Smith man. Tannerman was eliminated as part and parcel of the final theory which was developed prior to the show. If Smtihman were eliminated with a phony tourist, there would always be the question that this is a lie and still Gerry. Smithman must be eliminated by having a suspect take Gerry's place. Then, when the final theory is publicly aired, it will be one that is quite acceptable and believable to most. The final result will be - Jane Tanner wasn't a liar meaning the McCanns weren't liars, Smtihman was not Gerry, and all along the McCanns have been innocent and Maddie was snatched by local criminals.

Wait and watch, Colin. Mojo and I are not being misled by the media at all. We just see the writing on the wall.

I know you may disagree with me, Colin, but I will say this one more time. I have worked for twenty years with law enforcement and the media, so I think I should have a pretty good inside understanding of how things work in relation to the two topics. I could be wrong, I will admit that. This could be the biggest anomaly that I have ever seen and I could be surprised out of my boots. I wish I would be because I would like to see justice done and my own profile be understood to be correct. But, if history tells me anything, justice is not about to show up, Goncalo and I will have our professional names trashed when Scotland Yard "sovles" the case and "proves" us both completely wrong about everything. We are, essentially, going to lose big time and if you think I don't wish that weren't so, you are seriously mistaken.

I am a realist, Colin. Sometimes the good guys don't win. But guess what? We still get to be the good guys and that is worth a lot to me.

Pat Brown said...

By the way, I want to include Guerra in what I said above. Guerra has had many very astute and realistic observations about this case and rarely do I find myself in disagreement. Thank you for your thoughts, Guerra, always welcome.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 7.14am. My first thought when i heard this is that as you say 15 - 19 markers point to the wee girl therefore while similar not enough to charge the McCanns. This one again is being called similar again not an exact 19 markers but close enough but not enough to charge Malinka. What if while only being similar to the wee girls DNA it was an exact match to the other similar DNA found in the McCanns hire car. Giving a link between the McCanns hire car and Malinkas couch. I still can't explain how they got the hair of Malinkas couch, because if they had this hair in 2007 they would have had enough to at least make a Malinka a suspect.

Colin said...

No I agree with you mostly Pat, except I don't see any evidence yet that they are too serious about the current line of enquiry.

The Metropolitan Police were given a hot potato - it's a unique case in England, with the potential to return to 2007 levels of hysteria.

I'd compare it to the Ramsey case where there was a battle (was, and still is) between police, DA office, public and supporters of both camps.

Both are very complicated cases. Very similar I think.

But that kind of case is rare in England and we do not have autonomous prosecutors. In the McCann case it's the politicians who have been acting in their place. They clearly told the Metropolitan police to not go there when the review was created.

Colin said...

I think they're just going through the motions at the moment, Pat. They would rather not be involved at all I'm sure.

(... I think)

Anonymous said...

I think that they are deadly serious about it, not because it is legally tenable, but because it so easily sold to the media.
The schizo, the druggy, the IT fixer - foreign nationals. It is a line that they have been systematically drip feeding into the UK for a year or more. What matters is the saturation of the narrative - the weight of perception that they can swing into an 'authorised' and accepted version of what happened.
In my opinion there will be a final statement sometime late this year which effectively ratifies all of this as *official* if not proven in court. Why not carried to court? Well, because the Portuguese wouldn't cooperate, and/or two of the defendants were deemed unfit for trial etc.

Of course the real reason it won't go to court is that it is bullshit!

Worth reiterating: two of the named men have very serious medical conditions, and yet these interviews were put right out there for the media to lap up.

This is not just 'hype', it is inhuman, and it is orchestrated.
At least I think so.

Anonymous said...

Colin, sorry...last point...our comments over lapped!
Yeah, you are right I think, SY really don't want this at all. Hence I believe that they are trying to wash their hands of it, and coerce the PJ into the same!!

Colin said...

English police don't ever produce official statements of that nature, Anon@11.24. There may be documentaries made and books written by those with that opinion, but when do English police ever say anything officially about unresolved cases other than that they still remain hopeful?

In Scotland they have a different system (more like Europe and US) but in England it's either trial or nothing isn't it?

Parliament may request they attend to answer questions. I guess that is possible, but it's still not what you're suggesting.

Colin said...

You changed your mind quickly there, Anon!

Anonymous said...

There has already been a lot of behaviour that looks unprecedented to me.
There was a public statement by Redwood requesting psychics and dreamers to come forward. He made specific reference, publicly, to the PJ's failure to pass on information. Public statements requesting that the PJ reopen the case, knowing perfectly well that the terms of their law are very specific (not to mention the McCann's failure to offer themselves for a reconstruction). He publicised a map of sexual assaults in the Algarve, trying to conflate issues over which he has no jurisdiction. He appealed publicly for the PJ to make this a joint investigation.

I could go on. I have never seen behaviour like it.

By the time he retires, it may very well be that a final statement need say nothing more than what you suggest: the case remains unresolved. Hopeful of resolution? I believe AC Rowley has already floated the idea to the media that 'sometimes we just can't get answers'.

That statement will be enough, because we are likely to already have had a mass of media speculation that focuses on specific targets that are being drip fed into the mix.

It is happening already I think. (I hope that I'm wrong.)

Anonymous said...

Colin, crossed messages again!
No change of mind at all. How do you read it as such? They want rid of Operation Grange - to conclude on the terms of it's initial remit: stranger abduction.
Such a remit can never come to trial because:
1 it almost certainly didn't happen
2 they don't have jurisdiction
The outcome is thus a media play. Followed by 'no resolution'.

Colin said...

Sorry, misread you. You first said they were deadly serious and then that they didn't want it at all, but I see what you mean now. I think I may roughly agree with you.

DCI Redwood has said many things on TV or via the papers that haven't been said officially. But AC Rowley is ultimately in charge, and he's been pretty straightforward and frank hasn't he.

Anonymous said...

Colin, yep. I think Rowley's intervention was *very* telling.

Still, we can keep smiling. I'm actually not totally without hope (though I may sound it!). I like that Portuguese silence!

All the best.

Anonymous said...

How amazing Pat is forecasting the SY actions! Congrats, Pat. And it is really overwhelming the way Portugal government is dealing with this new situation. I'm first generation from portuguese myself and I feel kinda outraged with all of that. If Pat is right, the SY is about to address the world that portuguese police is unable to do their job on their own soil. But, the British police can provide that, even telling nonsenses. Portuguese people of good will should speak up louder.

Maybe this is exactly the reason why SY comes to Portugal. To let the world know that UK still prevails over small european countries after all. Don't you think, Pat?

AnneGuedes said...

" Killing Maddie in the apartment explains the cadaver dog hitting there"
No, it doesn't, unless the burglars kept vigil in the flat beside the corpse for ad minimum 1 hour and a half (this is in experimental conditions), which would imply that they killed the child before 8:30pm..

Pat Brown said...

Anon 12:37

Already Scotland Yard is redoing the case as if Portugal is totally useless. I don't know why Portugal is keeping so quiet except to say we disagree with Scotland Yard's theory, but there is much behind the scenes, politically, which I am in the dark about.

Pat Brown said...

Anne, of course, you are correct about the cadaver issue; it has always been a big argument when it comes to Maddie's time of death and the time Smithman carrying off a child.

But, that all really doesn't matter and I think this is often missed. Recent research on cadaver dog findings have narrowed that window down to minutes, yes, minutes. I am not saying how good the research is... just that it is.

And this is all that matters, that and the fact the issue will never be addressed except in forums online.

Read my blog of today about why it doesn't really matter since the case isn't going to court.

AnneGuedes said...

@Anon 12:05pm
Have you a link please about Redwood requesting psychics ?
Thanks for reminding the insinuations that the PJ hadn't worked deeply enough though the official behaviour was politically correct.
"Sometimes we just can't get answers" is in the AG report.

Anonymous said...

Pat and everyone, concerning your 7:41 AM post:

Someone please explain this to me like i am a 4 y/o:

Gerry stated that dining out and leaving 3 under-4 children alone in a strange house, in a foreign country at night was not something they thought could pose any danger to the children because basically it was like dining in "their own backyard".

Now, how is SY going to make the public accept that 3 burglars broke into the house through the "backyard", were suprised by and killed the baby, left with said baby (through the window ??) and basically left the place so impeccable that there was absolutely *no* trace of anything that could indicate a break in or something like that; and all of this, while 9 people, including the parents, were allegedly doing their rounds, coming and going to and from the apartments at regular (shortish) intervals??
I mean, how brain dead must one be to buy a story like this ???
SY *have got* to come up with something a bit more sophisticated than this, or this is such a huge telltale sign that the authorities are totally taking the people for idiots and implicitly telling them so to their faces.
How can the English people be collectively buying this ???


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

Pat, I agree that this case will never go to court and somehow I think it's better.
Juridical truth has constraint value only locally and temporary. The principals of social ethic are immutable.
I'd appreciate references about dogs smelling death after minutes of post-mortem. I've read a lot on that topic and haven't found that the 90' experience (with very good dogs and better conditions than the G5A) was challenged.

Anonymous said...

The 'psychics and dreamers' ref was from memory. There is a web reference here, but I can't find the original:

It was an appeal made in the early stages of OG. I remember it from a comment made by a media lawyer who raised an eyebrow at the time. (He has deleted the reference).

In complete fairness to Redwood it might not have been entirely empty. KM did of course have a dream. It may have been a coded appeal along the lines of 'can we end this quickly and succinctly?'

Colin said...

Anon@1.08: the story will be that the scene was thoroughly disturbed, accidentally, thus destroying evidence. I don't believe the majority are buying it, or will buy it, but on the other hand they don't want to think Madeleine was murdered by her parents either (which is - when you can't prove anything happened accidentally - what the allegations are to most people). We can easily understand why people will think anything other than think that. That's the problem the police face (or would if they were actually investigating all scenarios).

Anon@12.37: And to you :)

AnneGuedes said...

Thank you for replying, Anon 1:36pm. Mark Harrison himself had a look on Krugel's delirium and I've observed recently that the French police, when nothing else pops up, consider psychics...

guerra said...

Pat, I was just skimming through these comments and I noticed your flattering comment about me, thanks.
Thank you for providing a forum for this case and thanks for your valuable insights.