The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor
This post isn't really a commentary on the Madeleine McCann case but this case does so well represent Occam's Razor in crime analysis that I feel a need to use it as an example. In my blog yesterday, "It Just Doesn't Work that Way in Real Life," I discussed how shows like Death in Paradise have very complicated scenarios of how a murder was committed, the perpetrator being practically a genius of planning and misdirection. I pointed out how rarely is this the case in real life; almost always, homicides are usually acts of desperation born of loss of power and control. Crimes of passion (quite mislabeled as passion being the motive), also known as "out-of-character" crimes (which is also a mislabel as the crime is quite within the character of the person committing it) are relatively impulsive, so planning is quite minimal. Serial killers are mostly of the anger-retaliatory type and rarely plan the crime much in advance; usually they are opportunistic and strike when they have a victim that wanders into their territory alone or, while doing their usually trolling of an area, finally get lucky when a target appears with no witnesses in the area. The reason they get away with their crimes is simply the fact that most of the time there are no witnesses and they are strangers to the victim and there is no obvious link for the police to follow. As long as they don't leave DNA that can be matched to a DNA bank, they have a good shot of getting away with their homicides.
Much rarer is someone who plans a homicide: a black widow poisoning her husbands, a man getting rid of his wife so he can have his freedom, a boyfriend eliminating a pregnant girlfriend. Usually the crime is not all that clever, it is just often hard to prove in a court of law that the killer is guilty. Much of the time, the body is well-hidden so that the "no-body, no proof of a crime" rule applies. At other times, the crime is staged as a stranger homicide and it works but not because it is so intricately planned. It simply works because evidence is limited to prove otherwise.
Killers are generally of normal intelligence who commit their crimes without great forethought and they also tend to cover their tracks in a hurried manner. Murderers don't think to the depth of perpetrators on television or in the movies; they just rush to take care of the problem and, in doing so, act in a manner that many others in their shoes have acted before. In real life, crimes are often committed and covered up in similar ways, the way humans act when under pressure and with the limited knowledge most have at the time of the crime and while under stress.
I am repeatedly encouraged in the McCann case to do further research on a number of issues that some believe proves Madeleine McCann died earlier in the week and that on May 3rd, the McCanns and their friends had a preplanned course of action to stage an abduction. They believe there is lots of evidence proving that Madeleine was dead for days by then: incorrect creche records, a manipulated photo, no sightings of Madeleine, odd behaviors, and no neglect of the children. I am not going to argue all of this: I am going to point out Occam's Razor and why have always thought that May 3rd was the key to what happened to Madeleine and when.
If something had happened to Madeleine days before, we simply would have seen her "abduction" staged earlier in the week. In real life, planning to stage an abduction for days and having to manipulate evidence of Madeleine being alive for days when she was not, is simply too bloody difficult to manage. Then, on May 3rd, after all that planning, the whole evening was an ungodly mess full of inconsistencies and errors, which would be odd for a so carefully premeditated scenario.
If the McCanns are guilty, what May 3rd represents is a disaster, as Gerry pointed out, and a quick attempt to over up that disaster. The simplest answer, Occam's Razor, is that May 3rd was a confusion because very little was planned and when it was (interviews with the police), it was still a confused mess because there was little time to think anything through and everyone's brains were a muddle.
The key to this crime is very simple: the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting has always been my Number One reason for doubting the McCanns' innocence in the disappearance of Madeleine. The most consistent behavior of parents of missing children is to want EVERY lead followed, even ridiculous ones. On the evening of May 3rd, the Smith family saw a child who could have been Madeleine being carried off towards the sea, yet the McCanns expressed little interest in this sighting and even tried to suppress it. If the McCanns were innocent and Gerry was not Smithman, and even if they thought Jane was telling the truth, that Tannerman existed and might have been the kidnapper, it is hard to believe they would not have been gung-ho to follow-up that Smith sighting in every way possible, the way they did with Tannerman.
Applying Occam's Razor, why would they ignore and suppress the Smith sighting? What is the simplest of explanations? Because it was Gerry and he was in the act of covering up a crime that had just occurred. The reason Gonçalo Amaral believed this to be so is because he is a real-world detective and knows that Occam's Razor applies in crime investigation and the fanciful stuff you see on television is concocted by writers who need to come up with a show that is exciting to the viewers.
Detectives and profilers often are driven nuts by family members and citizens who, when a case goes unsolved, start going bonkers with unlikely theories, full of very intricate plots. They figure, if no one has been arrested and convicted, it must be because the crime is so complicated and clever.
In real life, it is often so much simpler; the crime is straightforward but it is hard to prove in court.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 21, 2015
By Pat Brown
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.
Killers are generally of normal intelligence who commit their crimes without great forethought and they also tend to cover their tracks in a hurried manner. Murderers don't think to the depth of perpetrators on television or in the movies; they just rush to take care of the problem and, in doing so, act in a manner that many others in their shoes have acted before. In real life, crimes are often committed and covered up in similar ways, the way humans act when under pressure and with the limited knowledge most have at the time of the crime and while under stress.
I am repeatedly encouraged in the McCann case to do further research on a number of issues that some believe proves Madeleine McCann died earlier in the week and that on May 3rd, the McCanns and their friends had a preplanned course of action to stage an abduction. They believe there is lots of evidence proving that Madeleine was dead for days by then: incorrect creche records, a manipulated photo, no sightings of Madeleine, odd behaviors, and no neglect of the children. I am not going to argue all of this: I am going to point out Occam's Razor and why have always thought that May 3rd was the key to what happened to Madeleine and when.
If something had happened to Madeleine days before, we simply would have seen her "abduction" staged earlier in the week. In real life, planning to stage an abduction for days and having to manipulate evidence of Madeleine being alive for days when she was not, is simply too bloody difficult to manage. Then, on May 3rd, after all that planning, the whole evening was an ungodly mess full of inconsistencies and errors, which would be odd for a so carefully premeditated scenario.
If the McCanns are guilty, what May 3rd represents is a disaster, as Gerry pointed out, and a quick attempt to over up that disaster. The simplest answer, Occam's Razor, is that May 3rd was a confusion because very little was planned and when it was (interviews with the police), it was still a confused mess because there was little time to think anything through and everyone's brains were a muddle.
The key to this crime is very simple: the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting has always been my Number One reason for doubting the McCanns' innocence in the disappearance of Madeleine. The most consistent behavior of parents of missing children is to want EVERY lead followed, even ridiculous ones. On the evening of May 3rd, the Smith family saw a child who could have been Madeleine being carried off towards the sea, yet the McCanns expressed little interest in this sighting and even tried to suppress it. If the McCanns were innocent and Gerry was not Smithman, and even if they thought Jane was telling the truth, that Tannerman existed and might have been the kidnapper, it is hard to believe they would not have been gung-ho to follow-up that Smith sighting in every way possible, the way they did with Tannerman.
Applying Occam's Razor, why would they ignore and suppress the Smith sighting? What is the simplest of explanations? Because it was Gerry and he was in the act of covering up a crime that had just occurred. The reason Gonçalo Amaral believed this to be so is because he is a real-world detective and knows that Occam's Razor applies in crime investigation and the fanciful stuff you see on television is concocted by writers who need to come up with a show that is exciting to the viewers.
Detectives and profilers often are driven nuts by family members and citizens who, when a case goes unsolved, start going bonkers with unlikely theories, full of very intricate plots. They figure, if no one has been arrested and convicted, it must be because the crime is so complicated and clever.
In real life, it is often so much simpler; the crime is straightforward but it is hard to prove in court.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 21, 2015
By Pat Brown
Rating: 
Published: July 27, 2011What 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.
27 comments:
I could not agree more Pat. Why don’t people listen to you?
If someone may have seen my kidnapped child, you would not be able to keep me away from them. Gerry and Kate did the opposite with the Smiths. In fact, to this day, they have “leads” on their website for Madeline and yet despite this being a very credible lead, the Smiths lead is not included.
What they have is Tannerman. Of course….. It’s the opposite direction…..
And, they have an ” ugly man with pock-marked skin and was said to be watching the family's apartment intently”
And my favorite, a description of a woman “behaving suspiciously in the area of the Port Olimpic Marina in Barcelona”?!??! Really? These 2 are important? An ugly man and a woman in another country?????
But a man seen walking with a small child near your vacation rental by a family is not important?
Link for anyone curious: http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html
How people can not see what is so obvious will always amaze me Pat.
The other critical thing for me is the twins not waking during the frantic search afterwards and the fact that mom and dad had no interest in forcing them awake with a million questions. That too would be expected. The twins were learning to speak and at the least, may have offered a slight clue. Even if it was something as a simple as “a man took her” or “men took her”. The fact they stayed asleep to me backs up the drugged theory, the fact that they didn’t even attempt to wake them, proves even more than mom and dad where in cover up mode not find Madeline mode.
I am 100% sure that the Smith sighting is Gerry. To me they look like him if you pay attention. Now, some say it looks nothing like Gerry. To them I saw you need to look at some other cases where the suspect was later found. Look at those sketches which are based off memory of what someone looks like vs reality. They are rarely portraits that look exactly like the person. Ariel Castro to me is a good one. Outside of the beard, to me looks nothing like Ariel. The sketch has a thin oval face and thin nose and to me almost seems like the sketch is a black man. Where Ariels face is very round as is his nose and he is Spanish. Link is below. I think its important to see that sketchs may not be exact.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321596/Ariel-Castro-Police-sketch-Gina-DeJesus-abductor-2004-looks-strikingly-similar-Ariel-Castro-prompting-questions-police-didnt-investigate-sooner.html
Add in the fact that the most obvious sighting outside their group is not just ignored, but discredited…. How can anyone think they are innocent.
But then we have cases like this every day.
Like Hailey Dunn. Mom says she was sleeping over. The friend said it was never even discussed. Then the day they report her missing, moms boyfriend clocks in work then leaves immediatly….. First lies and says he was fired. Later says he quit. Was driving all over town and then finally home to report her missing. Child poem Found on computers yet here we are years later and no arrests.
Corruption is what it boils down to for me with regards to lack of arrests. Those that see this behavior as innocence are just lacking basic intelligence.
TrustmeIgetit,
People don't listen because their emotions get in the way. When they start getting riled up, logic vanishes. Also, they don't have the experience of, well, experience, and even thought I do, they don't trust my years of experience because they can't relate to it. Many times families have accused me of siding with corrupt police because I refused to agree with their theory. Anyone who knows me, knows I have never sided with anyone, I only side with the truth. If I am wrong, I won't even side with myself! I just want us to all understand the best way to analyze crime so we can more successfully put criminals away and bring closure to families. I won't, however, go with some theory because it is popular.
One of the biggest mistakes people make in analyzing crimes is to forget about the totality of the evidence and start obsessing over one interesting tidbit or another. They then managed to find something suspicious in it, develop a theory to include it, and ignore all the rest of the evidence that does not support such a scenario. There are so many thinks that point to May 3 as the date something happened to Madeleine that surely that is when something happened to Madeleine. But some have found stuff they think odd and use that alone as a reason to say, aha, she died earlier in the week. Many cases have this problem and it is more than frustrating to watch a case go south in court or in the court of public opinion because information has been twisted beyond reasonableness to fit some theory. This is what I fight against; not that my theory is always correct, but that any theory presented should be based on the totality of evidence and not wrenched out of proportion by a desire to fit the evidence to the crime.
Dear Pat
I am not sure why you believe the Smith sighting yet dismiss the Gaspar statements. You haven't met any of these folk to judge them.
But let's use your method:
Occam's Razor says a father would not carry the corpse of his daughter through the streets.
Occam's Razaor says pedophiles might kill a child, accidentally or not. Occam's razor says they might stage an abduction to 1. cover up the killing and 2. avoid an autopsy. Occam's razor says they might wait a couple of days while a suitable temporary hiding place was found for the body, stories were gotten straight,[only hubris prevents them from seeing the holes] and high profile 'friends' can high-tail it out of town. A local realtor 'in the know' might be recalled from another country to help do the dirty work of the cover up. Meanwhile, cadaverine has time to develop inside the apartment, on the clothes, on cuddle cat...
Occam's razor says there is no honor among...thieves. The local realtor brought in to to do the dirty work looks like a very fine patsy, eh mate? He's got no high profile friends to bail him out, he's got some dodgy computer searches, people who know he's a pervert can testify... Meanwhile, friends of his might offer the Realtor an alibi whilst firing a warning shot across the bow of the good ship Team Imaginary Abductor...It's all very hard to believe but it isn't that complicated.
Anon 9:06
The Gaspar statement is not believable which is why it was not a major issue in the investigation.
As for your other comments, you are just purposely missing the point.
ANON 9:08
The point you missed is not whether the Smith sighting is legitimate; it is that the McCanns immediately dismissed it which is not normal for parents of a missing child.
As I was pointing out an issue of Occam's Razor, I did not go into the totality of the evidence in the McCann case. You can find all of that in my book and blogs. The totality of the evidence is what leads me to theorize the McCanns were involved in the disappearance of Maddie and her death and removal occurred on May 3 and not earlier. The Smith sighting alone is not the reason for my determinations; it is that and many other things, but the McCanns ignoring of the sighting is a huge red flag that any detective worth his salt would pick up on.
Hi Pat, I do agree that this made up mystery requires to be looked at globally. Some points are anchors, like the Smith sighting and the EVRD's alerts in the flat. Death on the 3rd no doubt, rigor mortis doesn't allow carrying a body as if it were a living one. Smithman had to renounce disposing of the body on the beach/in the sea after he was spotted by so many people who would immediately relate the unevitable discovery of the body to him. Hence he didn't have more than one option.
Dear Pat
I am anon 9:06.
Of course the Gaspar statements weren't part of the initial investigation by the PJ because Leicester police withheld the statements from them for six months. Give me a valid reason why the police withheld these statements for so long?
Mrs. Gaspar is a doctor and as far as we know she is as credible and reliable a witness as the Smith family, who are responsible for waiting many many days before reporting their sighting, producing two distinctly different e-fits, and deciding the man carrying a corpse wasn't Gerry after all....after meeting with his 'people'.
Mrs. Gaspar had no reason to lie, as far as we know. If you can offer a reasonable explanation for why she and her husband would make up such a story I might consider giving the statements less weight. As it stands, with the bizarre involvement of high level political establishment figures in the McCann's case + recent revelations about high level involvement in pedophilia and covering up same in the UK--including individual police departments---, I see no valid reason to dismiss Gaspar. Allegations of pedophilia among groups of seemingly reputable people are unpleasant and hard to swallow but should not be dismissed out of hand without first at least attempting to verify the claims. This is especially true in the case of a missing probably dead child.
Anon 9:::06
I have already coverred the Gaspar statements previously and I am not going to go into it again. I do not find her statement credible, at least not her interpretation of what occurred.
"Tthe Gaspar statements are not reliable. I cannot get excited about these because we only hear from one woman who wasn't exactly sure what she saw and from her husband who does not agree with her assessment. Sadly, some of those who cry out that we ought to rely on facts in the McCann case are willing to allow one questionable statement about David Payne to become a focal point of what happened to Madeleine, that it is okay to slander David Payne while at the same time standing up for Gonçalo Amaral. I fail to understand this double standard; if there is not proof to denigrate David Payne, then we ought to leave further speculation to the investigation, should one even exist."
Please no more discussion about the McCann case. I do not wish to argue over everyone's theories. If you wish to understand my particular analysis, please read the rest of my blogs and/or my book. Feel free to have your own opinions and theories but please refrain from ad hominem attacks on others simply because they have an alternate theories. Even detectives often have a number of working theories which they follow up until enough evidence can prove one to be true.
Barring a miracle, the McCann case will never reach the criminal courts and none of us will have our theories proven true or false.
Some comments about your blog here Pat http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11206-the-madeleine-mccann-case-and-occam-s-razor#307580
I have put some comments about this on my Facebook page if anyone wants to see. I do agree however that we'll never find out what went on and that Grange is a total whitewash, and that all this arguing is pointless.
I agree with your Occam's Razor comparison Pat, but more importantly so too did Goncalo Amaral and the PJ. The chances that a man of the same age, build, hairstyle and face as Gerry McCann was carrying an inert 3/4 year old little girl through the streets of PDL at just the right time, are a zillion to one.
Unfortunately, it appears those trying to complicate the issues and muddy the waters have already turned on you. Those trying to force that square peg into the round hole and beat those zillion to one odds will now want yer guts for garters, lol. But you are a feisty gal, and quite a few notches up from them on the intelligence scale, so go you! Kindest wishes x
Rosalinda, one of the reasons I stopped commenting on this case (along with the fact I believe that the Scotland Yard investigation is a fraud and the case is dead in the water) is because the discussion has devolved into a vicious battleground between different theories. Instead of people simply disagreeing with each other, the ad hominem attacks have become quite unpleasant. There are people I like who I believe are misinterpreting evidence but that doesn't mean I have to call them names. Likewise, just because some don't believe my analysis doesn't mean they have to attack my professionalism. I base my analysis on years of experience, and while I am not saying I am always correct, I always support my determinations with evidence, not innuendo. For example, there are many who base a particular theory of what happened to Madeleine on the Gaspar statement and while the Gaspar statement is interesting, the fact that it is one woman's questionable interpretation of one event does not qualify this as evidence that David Payne and Gerry McCann are involved in pedophilia and the sexual abuse of Madeleine. As a detective, I might well investigate this line of thought further but the statement is far too unconvincing to base any conclusion on it without further supporting evidence. Yet, when I refuse to do so (which is proper and professional), I am subjected to very vicious attacks. All of this saddens me and keeps me from commenting further on this case because once upon a time, the "antis" were about focusing on the police files and the work of Goncalo Amaral and now much of the discussion has veered away from the files and solid evidence and there is even a lot of ad hominem attacks on Goncalo as well. I attribute much of this to frustration and fear that the Scotland Yard investigation will indeed come to nothing and the case will be put to rest, leaving any discussion of this case to the bowels of the Internet.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. NO parent who wasn't involved in their daughters demise would dismiss any possible lead. That is unquestionably abnormal and beyond suspicious of the McCannsp.
I saw your post on Facebook Pat but couldn't respond.
I think you're just about the only person on this case who's always maintained their dignity. That is saying a lot given all the abuse you've suffered from both pros and antis and given that most other people on this case (myself included) have at some time or another got deeply angry or gone quite insane.
So I think most people will always respect you for that. It's sad to say that in the day to day squabbles people forget all the hard work you've put into this case for no reward and indeed the ostracisation I guess you've faced from certain quarters; plus they forget all the pro-bono work you've done elsewhere.
But like I say, I think at the end of the day, most people appreciate the integrity you've constantly maintained throughout this total charade.
I have always been optimistic regarding the Scotland Yard investigation, but now I just don't know. Its gone on too long and SY have gone over and above in their attempts to find anyone (as long as its not mccanns or tapas) to pin the blame on. If this were a film set, it would be Liz Taylor's Cleopatra, no expense spared, no set too big to build. Why? It isn't convincing anyone, not even the headline skimmers, 78% of the public don't believe McCanns, by 2016, they may have a full house. Its what makes this case so vexing I suppose.
As you know better than most Pat, this case is far from unique, the Jonbenet Ramsey ran along similar lines, and though much lower key, the campaigns to find Lisa Irwin and Isabel Cellis are equally frustrating.
What the public see is the failure of the police to act, I can't imagine what it must be like from the police perspective. The police may well be in a constant battle with the prosecutors over the amount of evidence required.
In the McCann case, we don't even know WHO would do the prosecuting. The crime occurred in Portugal. Scotland Yard can try to 'find' the abductor, but they can't prosecute him. All very strange.
Rosalinda,
I did not have faith in the Scotland Yard review from Day One. Why? Because they were not invited in by the Portuguese police nor were they looking for an abductor where the local police search for an abductor had failed. These are the only two reasons a foreign police entity normally involve themselves in a case. So what was Scotland Yard doing there? Only two possibilities: they are truly searching for an abductor in which case the antis including myself are completely off the mark or they are there to "find" an abductor which would put this is under a political corruption label. Since I do believe evidence points to the McCanns involvement and no abduction, this forces me into the second camp. I still have no clue as to why Scotland Yard would be brought in to cleanse the McCann name, but I can see no other reason for this bizarre investigation.
The second reason I have no faith in the Scotland Yard investigation is how inappropriately it has been handled. I have seen reviews before and they don't require this much time and money. Even if the detectives of Scotland Yard, including Andy, were sent in with the remit that the McCanns were off limits and the Yard was to focus on the abduction theory, it is hard to believe they would spend so many years and millions on the review without at some point, realizing that no evidence of an abduction occurred and the Tapas 9 behaviors and statements along with the cadaver and blood dog hits just might be where they should be looking. Since so much time has passed and so many abductors looked at, so much ground has been dug up that clearly was linking to the abduction theory, one can only surmise, at least I can, that the remit stands regardless of what anyone thinks. Who knows? Maybe Andy Redwood was only trying to do the job he was required to do and, maybe, he knows that it is hogwash and has tried to leave a few hints to the truth along the way. Maybe this was what getting rid of Tannerman and focusing on Smithman was about. However, since Tannerman must have been fabricated, this certainly can't be any kind of clever ruse to use against the McCanns because in court, the defense would shred the police for misconduct. The prosecution in this case had been dead in the water prior to the arrival of Scotland Yard and they have only made matters worse, iff something can be deader than dead. ONLY if they find REAL evidence of someone having abducted Maddie (like her body being found buried under someone's cement porch or enclosed in the brick wall of their home) or Maddie's body being found in such a place and with such evidence to link to the McCanns, is a prosecution in Portugal going to happen.
Rosalinda (continued) As to the other cases of similarity, I can tell you along with those you have named, there are many more, cases of parents with children who have gone missing but no bodies. And, all most all of those have gone unsolved. JonBenet was unique because the body was still there but what happened in that cases was a horrible early investigation which compromised the evidence and the integrity of the department, leaving the case as a bunch of rubble.
So, the McCann case is really not alone in going unsolved. What really made it become so big was McCanns own use of publicity and the fund which is unprecedented in missing children's cases. Outside of the McCanns wanting money and fame, their attempts to "locate their child" or "clear their name" have failed dismally.
As to the public, they only matter so much in the eyes of people who control things. Outrage is only so good if it has some kind of true power. The outrage against the McCanns is pretty much just on the Internet and in comments. This is not real power., When people take to the street in droves, then you have something, but even with the horrible waste of taxpayer money by Scotland Yard on a case that isn't even British or likely prosecutable, where is the real protest? There isn't one and that is why when Scotland Yard closes this case down with some dead creepy guy or a "we tried our best" the whole case will go quietly away except on the Internet where people who have websites and FB pages and tweet will believe still that the whole world is watching and not just some very tiny segment of it. That Sonia can make a difference with her documentary is questionable, although I appreciate her doing it. Unless she is really on a major MSM channel (which I find unlikely), I think her documentary will be much like Halls; very useful to posterity but not so much still enough to turn public protest around and expose enough of the corruption to turn this case around.
Thomas, thank you for your kind words.
My frustration is mostly at seeing things devolve from a clear focus on this case of the McCanns' involvement in the death of their daughter and a subsequent hurried coverup and support of Gonçalo Amaral and his fight for justice, to a dozen very convoluted theories that I believe only serve to damage the antis message that the McCanns are not innocent and the fund has been stealing money for years from unsuspecting people. In becoming so obsessed with creating alternative scenarios to the one Amaral had forwarded, the label of nutters and conspiracy theorists is going to cause the message to be killed.
I feel bad for all because I know they mean well, but, sadly, along with what I believe will be closing of this case by Scotland Yard without any prosecution of the McCanns, the message going into the future which should be one of simple concern of mishandling of missing children's cases, abuse of the media, misappropriation of public monies, and political protection will be lost in all the ad hominem attacks and complicated, bizarre theories. The gleeful personal attacks on me add to this destruction because, I a one of the few professional voices on this case and if the antis call me incompetent, then that is one less professional voice. Recently, some have even trashed Gonçalo Amaral which pretty much is just knocking the legs from under us all. I wish people would understand that you don't have to agree with everything someone says in order to appreciate their efforts and be civil.
Well if people have attacked you I would take it as a compliment: they know you're high profile and with kudos, so when you disagree with them on things that they feel are important, they can't just brush you off as an internet nutter.
The problem is that we're never going to agree about everything. In classical terms, we are the opposition, and history will tell you that eventually the opposition will just end up arguing amongst themselves.
Like you I've been resigned to the fact that the truth of this case will probably never come out. Whether or not any good may come of all this is I don't know. If I was being optimistic, it could be that, people, if they get to know this story, will wake up to media manipulation, as well as corruption in the police, child protection agencies and politics.
Well, Thomas, I analyzed the 2000 year of mystery of Cleopatra and I am still getting ad hominem attacks on my work. Few will discuss my findings because, as one CNN commentator put it, I am messing up a good myth! So, experience tells me that time often makes matters worse because on one hand, one has no clear understanding of the time and place; on the other hand, years of media can completely annihilate independent thinking. This is one reason I am focused on improving detectives ability to profile crimes because cold case work is worthless, by and far, because too much water has gone under the bridge to bring a proper closure. Even though I wish I could do this work, I don't like wasting time and money and seeing little progress; I prefer to do something useful which appears to be detective training so that cases don't become cold and unprosecutable.
Haha ad hominem attacks over Cleopatra seems quite ridiculous. It's bizzarre that after all that time the truth cannot come out.
Well I think detective training must offer at least some satisfaction, since you must feel to some extent like your influencing the next generation. Personally I wish they would teach in schools, all the lessons that we might take away from the McCann case; that way, you would create a generation who are savvy enough to spot a similar case in the future.
Pat,
I am very sorry and shocked to read the recent horrid and vile ad hominem attack on you.
I do not agree with everything in any of the more reasoned theories put forward but please remember these attacks reflect the personality of the writer not you.
A.
Thank you, A, very kind words.
My problem with ad hominem attacks is that they destroy civil conversation and take away from the subject. I am not the only one being verbally attacked; there are others who have suffered really vicious slurs, some have dealt with far worse than I. Sadly, some of those who have been attacked are attacking others themselves; hence, the antis are factionalizing while the pros are pretty much just one group. We have lost the point of what we set out to do which was bring attention to the miscarriage of justice, open the public's eyes to the police files that contain evidence that should allow the public to question the McCann's innocence, to bring attention to the fraudulent fund, and to support Goncalo Amaral in his fight to present the case to the public.
I think everyone was one pretty much the same page until Scotland Yard stepped in. In doing so, the Yard gave legitimacy to the McCanns and the pro's standpoint. Scotland Yard's search for an abductor pretty much labeled the antis as nutters. Now, at that point, we all had two choices: convince ourselves that Scotland Yard really is on our side and it is just a matter of time before they bring down the McCanns and we all are vindicated or accept that no such thing is going to happen and we are all pretty much just going to have to live with never seeing justice and being labeled conspiracy theorists and idiots.
I chose the latter because that is reality to me. It is sad and frustrating and certainly not ego-enhancing but it is the way things work. My hope is simply that enough people will eventually recognize that Scotland Yard had a remit that was political in nature and, in the future, we need to work to separate justice from political manipulation.
Others choose to believe the former, that Scotland Yard will come through. And, some, I believe, have gone further and further into complicated scenarios because they doubt that this is really going to happen and the more complicated the crime and the deeper the corruption, the easier it is to eventually live with the closing of this case as an abduction. I believe that when this happens, we will see years and years of continued obsession with these complex theories because many will need to keep doing so in order to counter the claim that the antis were dead wrong in their assessment of the McCanns.
Nothing sucks like having the world label you as a moron or lunatic for spending years fighting for something that wasn't even true. I know because I have had that label put on me and there is no way to fight back because the truth is buried and likely will remain so. Watch the Jack Nickolson movie, "The Pledge" for a great example of this. I saw that movie years ago and I remember telling people that when I fight for justice in certain cases, if I don't win, this is exactly what will happen to me. And it has. And it isn't pleasant.
I don't believe that all that has been done in the McCann case has been for nothing even if the legal state of the case goes south. I believe it is always important that people speak out and question. And, when Scotland Yard shuts this case down, I do appreciate that the work of many people (even my detractors) will remain in public view.
The only thing I wish people would understand is that if we tear each other to shreds, the legacy left won't be a very good one and this can destroy all the good work done until now. Everyone who is now attacking me for my stance on Scotland Yard and my theories essentially is telling the public who reads of the case in the future that they can discount everything I said. Because there are attacks on Amaral, we can discount everything he said. Because there are attacks on Tony Bennett, we can discount everything he said, because there are attacks on Sonia Poulton, we can discount everything she said, because there are attacks on Hideho, we can discount everything she said, and on and on. Who will then be left to believe?
I saw The Pledge also years ago.
In the end we all have to wait and see what SY do, until then it's all theory and the truth will probably never be fully known about SY or the disappearance of Madeleine.
I believe the SY officers working day to day will be working in good faith.
Time may well bring many answers but that could be years in the future.
In the meantime Dr Amaral awaits the libel case judgement and I am nervously hopeful for him.
Post a Comment